Bengaluru: A city court on Monday discharged Janata Dal (Secular) MLA HD Revanna from the sexual harassment case registered against him in connection with the alleged abuse involving his son, former MP Prajwal Revanna. The order was passed by the XLII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Bengaluru, after holding that the four-year delay in filing the complaint could not be condoned under the law.

The case had drawn national attention earlier this year following the circulation of thousands of videos allegedly depicting sexual abuse of several women, which led to criminal proceedings against Prajwal Revanna and his father HD Revanna.

Court declines to condone delay

In its detailed order, the trial court observed that it was not a fit case to condone the delay in lodging the complaint under Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The magistrate declined to take cognisance of the offence punishable under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with sexual harassment.

“This is not a fit case to condone the delay in lodging the complaint or initiation of prosecution in respect of the offence punishable under Section 354A of IPC alleged against accused No.1 under Section 473 of CrPC,” the order stated.

Accordingly, the court discharged accused No.1, HD Revanna, from the offence alleged against him under Section 354A of the IPC.

Background of the case

The sexual abuse allegations against HD Revanna and his son Prajwal Revanna surfaced after more than 2,900 videos allegedly showing the sexual assault of multiple women were circulated widely on social media platforms. The videos triggered public outrage and prompted police action.

On April 28, an FIR was registered at the Holenaraseepur town police station in Hassan district based on a complaint filed by one of the alleged victims. The FIR invoked Sections 354A (sexual harassment), 354D (stalking), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 509 (insult to the modesty of a woman) of the IPC against both Prajwal Revanna and HD Revanna.

Legal argument on limitation

In his plea before the Karnataka High Court seeking to quash the proceedings against him, HD Revanna argued that the trial court was barred from taking cognisance of the offence due to limitation under Section 468 of the CrPC. The provision stipulates that for offences punishable with imprisonment ranging from one to three years, the limitation period for initiating prosecution is three years.

Section 354A of the IPC carries a maximum punishment of three years’ imprisonment. Revanna’s counsel contended that since the complaint was filed nearly four years after the alleged incident, the case was legally time-barred.

However, Section 473 of the CrPC allows a court to take cognisance of an offence even after the expiry of the limitation period if it is satisfied that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary to do so in the interests of justice.

High Court’s earlier direction

While hearing Revanna’s quashing petition, the Karnataka High Court did not immediately terminate the proceedings. Instead, it held that the trial court must independently consider whether the delay in filing the complaint could be condoned under Section 473 of the CrPC.

The High Court had observed: “As the maximum punishment prescribed under Section 354A of IPC is for a period of three years, it is essential to consider whether it is a fit case to extend the period of limitation or not as per Section 473 of CrPC.”

In view of this observation, the High Court remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration on the limited question of condonation of delay.

Trial court’s final decision

Following the High Court’s directions, the XLII ACJM court examined the facts and circumstances of the case and concluded that the delay had not been satisfactorily explained. Consequently, it refused to condone the delay and declined to take cognisance of the offence under Section 354A of the IPC against HD Revanna, leading to his discharge in the case.

Advocate G Arun represented HD Revanna during the proceedings, while Special Public Prosecutor Ashok Naik appeared for the State.

Other cases against Revanna

It may be noted that HD Revanna had faced two criminal cases earlier this year—one relating to allegations of sexual assault and another concerning allegations of kidnapping. He was granted bail in both cases on May 13.

The discharge order passed on Monday pertains specifically to the sexual harassment charge under Section 354A of the IPC and does not automatically conclude proceedings against other accused or under other sections of law.

Conclusion: The Bengaluru court’s decision to discharge HD Revanna underscores the significance of statutory limitation in criminal proceedings. While the larger investigation into the alleged abuse involving Prajwal Revanna continues, the ruling highlights the legal threshold required for condoning delays in filing complaints, even in sensitive cases.