Supreme Court Issues Notice To HD Revanna In Karnataka's Challenge To His Discharge In Outraging Modesty Case

The Supreme Court issued notice in the Karnataka Government's plea, challenging the Karnataka High Court's order setting aside the charge for outraging a woman's modesty, alleged against Janata Dal (S) leader HD Revanna by his former house help. The High Court discharged him under Section 354 but had retained the charges under Section 354A(sexual harassment) of the Indian Penal Code and asked the Trial Court to explore whether the limitation period to take cognisance can be extended. 

It may be recalled that the High Court was hearing Revanna's plea for the quashing of the first information report filed under Sections 354, 354A, 506 and 509 of the IPC. During the pendency of the plea, the police filed a chargesheet, and the Trial Court took cognisance under Sections 354 and 354A IPC.

The JD(S) leader approached the High Court and argued that the cognisance could not be taken as the complaint was lodged after a delay of three years, the limitation prescribed under Section 468 CrPC for offences punishable with imprisonment of three years and below. Eventually, the Trial Court discharged him under Section 354A as well, citing delay. 

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran heard the matter. Appearing for the Karnataka State, Senior Advocate S Nagamuthu apprised the Court that there are two accused in this matter, including his son, Prajwal Revanna, who has been accused by the former help under Section 376(rape).

Issuing notice, the bench orally questioned how the High Court could suggest modifying the charges from Sections 354(outraging a woman's modesty) to 354A of the Indian Penal Code.

Justice Pardiwala told Nagamuthu: "You should have challenged the order when the Court decided to take cognisance for outraging the modesty; Section 354 and other charges in the chargesheet were dropped."

On the aspect of limitation, Nagamuthu submitted that the period of limitation is described vis-a-vis the offence which is more severe amongst the charges levelled, which is said to be Section 376. Justice Pardiwala questioned if the State wants the JD(S) leader to also face trial for the offence of rape. Nagamuthu responded that the cognisance is not taken against the offender but the offence committed. 

The bench however, was not convinced and clarified that there was no cognisance taken under Section 376 against HD Revanna. Justice Pardiwala said: "There is a charge of 302 against A and B and there is a charge under Section 201[destroying evidence] against C. C has to be charged and tried only for that offence. Will you say just because A and B are facing charges for 302, [C should also face the same charges?]"

Nagamuthu again tried clarifying that since the offence took place in a common transaction, a common chargesheet was filed and a common cognisance of offences was taken place. Therefore, the limitation period has to be assessed vis-a-vis the offence which is the most grave in the chargesheet. 

Case Details:  THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs REVANNA H.D.|Diary No. 25514 / 2026