SC seeks H.D. Revanna’s response on Karnataka’s plea against High Court order quashing the charge of outraging modesty
The Supreme Court on Monday (July 13, 2026) agreed to examine a plea filed by the Karnataka Government challenging a High Court order quashing the
The Supreme Court on Monday (July 13, 2026) agreed to examine a plea filed by the Karnataka Government challenging a High Court order quashing the charge of assault or use of criminal force to outrage the modesty of a woman under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against Janata Dal-Secular (JD-S) legislator H.D. Revanna. A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran issued notice on the State government’s appeal and called upon Mr. Revanna to file his response. Revanna is accused of sexually harassing a former house help employed at his family’s farmhouse. The complaint also alleged that his son, former JD(S) MP Prajwal Revanna, had sexually harassed the woman, following which a First Information Report (FIR) was registered in April 2024. In an order passed on November 19, 2025 the High Court had upheld the charge of sexual harassment under Section 354A of the IPC against Mr. Revanna but quashed the charge under Section 354. It had also directed the trial court to consider afresh whether the delay of nearly three years in filing the complaint could be condoned before taking cognisance of the offence under Section 354A.
On Monday, the apex court expressed reservations over the High Court’s interference after the trial court had already taken cognisance of the offence. “How can the High Court change the charges? The court took cognisance. Now you have been discharged from Section 354 also...,” the Bench remarked. The Bench also questioned the Karnataka Government over the delay in challenging the High Court’s order. “When the court decided to take cognisance only of Section 354 and other charges were dropped, you should have challenged the order. We are not agreeing with the order of the High Court, but there should be some discipline,” Justice Pardiwala remarked. The State’s counsel submitted that the allegations against Mr. Revanna’s son, Prajwal Revanna, were graver and included the offence of rape under Section 376 of the IPC. The Bench, however, cautioned against conflating the allegations against the father and the son merely because they formed part of the same chargesheet. “She was working in their house. She has different allegations for the father and the son,” Justice Pardiwala observed.
Before the High Court, Mr. Revanna had contended that cognisance of the offence under Section 354A could not have been taken as the complaint was lodged beyond the prescribed limitation period of three years. He had further argued that while the complainant’s original statement disclosed only an offence under Section 354A, the police subsequently invoked Section 354 in the chargesheet. According to him, this was done to overcome the bar of limitation, since Section 354 carries a maximum punishment of five years’ imprisonment. Accepting this contention in part, the High Court had held that the trial court would first have to decide whether the delay in filing the complaint deserved to be condoned before taking cognisance of the offence under Section 354A. It had also observed that the charges ought to be framed on the basis of the complainant’s original allegations, which, according to the court, attracted only Section 354A. It had accordingly remanded the matter to the trial court. “As the maximum punishment prescribed under Section 354A of the 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… I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to remand the matter back to the trial court to consider afresh as to whether it is a fit case for condonation of delay or not and pass appropriate orders…in respect of taking cognisance of the offence,” the High Court had said.
The BriefWire