Part Relief For HD Revanna: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Outraging Modesty Charge Levelled By Former House Help
The Karnataka High Court has set aside the charge of outraging woman's modesty under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code, levelled against Janata Dal (S) leader HD Revanna, by his former house help.However, the court has upheld the charge under Section 354A (Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment) leveled against him and asked the trial court to examine if the same can be...
The Karnataka High Court has set aside the charge of outraging woman's modesty under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code, levelled against Janata Dal (S) leader HD Revanna, by his former house help.
However, the court has upheld the charge under Section 354A (Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment) leveled against him and asked the trial court to examine if the same can be invoked despite lapse of limitation period prescribed under Section 468 CrPC.
Justice M I Arun said,
“This Court is of the opinion that the allegations made in the complaint attract the provision of Section 354A of IPC and not Section 354 of IPC.”
Revanna had approached the court seeking to quash the FIR. During the pendency of his plea however, the police filed a chargesheet and trial court also took cognizance of the offences.
The JD(S) leader had argued that in light of Section 468 of CrPC, cognizance of the alleged offences cannot be taken as the complaint has been lodged after a lapse of three years, the limitation prescribed for offences punishable with an imprisonment of three years and below.
The prosecution on the other hand raised a preliminary objection contending that the criminal petition had become infructuous in light of the police report having been filed and cognizance having been taken by the trial Court.
The bench relied on Apex court judgment in Anand Kumar Mohatta and Another vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home and Another reported in (2019) and said “In my opinion, the petitioner can maintain the criminal petition even if the police report is filed subsequent to filing of the FIR.”
Further it said “A bare reading of the complaint and the police report and the materials produced disclose that the major offences alleged are against accused No.2, the son of the petitioner herein. In respect of accused No.1, the version of the complainant is slightly varied and incorporated in the police report from what she had given earlier in the complaint.”
Stating that petitioner is primarily charged on the allegations made by the complainant and not from any independent witnesses, the bench said,
“I am of the opinion that the petitioner is required to be charged with the offences made out as per the version in the complaint rather than the charge laid out against the petitioner in the police report. The allegation in the complaint against the petitioner attracts the provision of 354A of IPC and not Section 354 of IPC.”
Since Section 354A is punishable with maximum 3 years and the charge was hit by limitation under Section 468 CrPC, the Court remanded the matter back to the trial court to consider whether it is a fit case to condone the delay and pass appropriate orders in respect of the offence under Section 354A of IPC.
Appearance: Senior Advocate C.V. NAGESH, Prabhuling K Navadgi a/w Advocate Girish Kumar B M for Petitioner.
Senior Advocate Professor Ravivarma Kumar a/w Additional Special Public Prosecutor B.N. JAGADEESH, Advocates Urmila Pullat, Inchara H M for R1.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 394
Case Title: Revanna H D AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4932 OF 2024