Karnataka High Court Vacates Stay On Framing Charges Against HD Revanna In Kidnapping Case, Flags Repeated Adjournments
The Karnataka High Court last week vacated its interim order stalling framing of charges against Janata Dal (S) leader HD Revanna who is accused of kidnapping a woman, after taking note of lack of readiness on behalf of Revanna to go ahead with the matter in view of repeated adjournments sought in the case. The court was hearing Revanna's petition seeking to quash the prosecution...
The Karnataka High Court last week vacated its interim order stalling framing of charges against Janata Dal (S) leader HD Revanna who is accused of kidnapping a woman, after taking note of lack of readiness on behalf of Revanna to go ahead with the matter in view of repeated adjournments sought in the case.
The court was hearing Revanna's petition seeking to quash the prosecution initiated against him.
On February 5, Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav in his order observed that the petitioner had sought for an accommodation. For context, on January 17, 2025 the high court had directed the trial court not to frame charges against Revanna till January 30, 2025. This interim order was ordered to be in operation till March 7, 2025.
The court in its order noted, "It is submitted that matter was not posted on the said date and interim order was not extended on the said date. The matter was posted on 29.01.2026. It is further to be noticed that on the said date of 29.01.2026, petitioner was not ready to go on with the matter on merits. The Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent had objected for an adjournment. However, in exercise of judicial discretion, as a final opportunity, the interim order was extended till the next date by way of a direction to the trial Court not to proceed further regarding framing of charges till the next date of hearing. This Court, though extended the interim order, had made certain observations".
Justice Yadav thereafter referred to January 29, 2026 order which states, "The statement of objections filed on behalf of respondent State to the Amended Petition is taken on record.The trial Court not to proceed further regarding framing of charges till the next date of hearing. It is made clear that the petitioner to be ready to proceed with the matter by the next date of hearing...Re-list the matter on 05.02.2026."
The court thereafter observed that it was clear that the court while adjourning the matter to 05.02.2026 had made a specific observation that petitioner is to be ready to proceed with the matter by the next date of hearing. However on February 5, the petitioner's counsel had once again sought for an adjournment, the court noted.
It thereafter referred to the adjournment memo which stated that the senior counsel appearing in the matter is going out of station for a trial case and will not be present on February 5. The memo thus prayed that the court may consider the request for adjournment and post the matter to any date next week.
The high court thereafter said:
"At the outset, it is noticed that a memo for adjournment before the High Court which is a Court of record cannot be moved on the ground that counsel has been engaged in a matter to appear before a trial Court. Such a request ought not to be made before the High Court. In light of the petitioner not being ready, the Court is of the impression that the petitioner does not intend to go on with the matter with due diligence. There is no other inference that can be drawn, taking note of the lack of readiness to go on with the matter on the previous date, that is 29.01.2026 as well as on this day.
It is not as if the petitioner was not made aware of the date of hearing on 29.01.2026. When a date of hearing is fixed with a specific direction for the petitioner to be ready to proceed with the matter and the petitioner's counsel not being ready and seeks for adjournment once again, Court is not inclined to accede to the request. Accordingly, in light of the unreasonable request for adjournment sought for, the interim order in operation stands vacated"
The matter is now listed on February 26.
As per the prosecution, the complainant's mother had worked for Revanna for about six years and was kidnapped by Satish Babanna on Revanna's instructions. It was alleged that the Complainant said his friend brought to his notice a purported video allegedly pertaining to the sexual assault of his mother and when he requested Babanna to send his mother back, the latter declined to do so.
Revanna was granted bail by the special court on May 13, 2024. The High Court vide its order dated August 28, 2024, had dismissed the petition filed by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) seeking cancellation of bail granted.
Case title: H.D.REVANNA v/s STATE OF KARNATAKA
CRL.P 4943/2024