Safiya Malik

The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice M.I. Arun set aside the charge of outraging a woman’s modesty under Section 354 IPC that had been framed against senior Janata Dal (S) leader HD Revanna, while leaving in place the allegation of sexual harassment under Section 354A IPC raised by his former household worker. The matter concerns her assertion that she faced unwelcome physical contact and advances during her employment at his residence. The Court directed the trial court to reconsider whether proceedings for the offence under Section 354A IPC may continue despite the delay in lodging the complaint, in light of the limitation bar contained in Section 468 CrPC.

The matter arises from a complaint filed on 28 April 2024 by a woman who had previously worked as a household worker at the residence of the petitioner, HD Revanna, and his family. She alleged that during her period of employment, she was subjected to unwelcome physical contact and sexual advances by the petitioner and his son. The complaint stated that she worked in the household over different periods and experienced harassment when asked to perform tasks inside the residence. She also alleged that other household staff warned her against reporting the incidents and that she eventually left the job several years before filing the complaint.

Also Read: Provident Fund Dues Supersede Secured Creditor’s Claims Under SARFAESI Act: Supreme Court

The complainant further claimed that, after leaving employment, her house allotted under a government housing scheme was demolished due to the petitioner’s influence and that attempts to lodge a complaint in the local police station were discouraged. She submitted that she filed the complaint only after gaining confidence when other complaints were lodged against the petitioner’s son.

Following receipt of the complaint, the police registered an FIR for offences under Sections 354A, 354D, 506 and 509 of the IPC, and later filed a charge sheet alleging offences under Sections 354 and 354A IPC against the petitioner. The police report was based primarily on the complainant’s statements, with no independent witnesses cited regarding the allegations against the petitioner. The statutory provisions discussed in the proceedings included Sections 354, 354A, 354D, 506 and 509 IPC, and Sections 468, 469 and 473 CrPC relating to limitation and cognizance.

The Court recorded that the filing of the charge sheet during pendency of the quashing petition does not render the matter infructuous and “the petitioner can maintain the criminal petition even if the police report is filed subsequent to filing of the FIR.”

The Court examined whether the FIR could have been registered after the lapse of three years and whether the matter could be taken up for investigation. It observed that Section 468 Cr.P.C. concerns “bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation” and that “cognizance is taken by the Courts and not by the Police.” It further recorded that “before taking cognizance, the Court is required to apply its mind taking into consideration the offences alleged” and “if the offences alleged are less than three years and below…the Court by virtue of Section 468…cannot take cognizance of the same, however subject to condonation of the delay in accordance with Section 473.”

The Court noted that investigation led to the police reporting that the petitioner called the complainant to his room when his wife was absent, held her hand, pulled her and touched her body, and harassed her sexually. The Court stated that “the petitioner has been charged with the offences under Sections 354 and 354A of IPC” while offences under Sections 354D, 506 and 509 were given up.

After comparing the complaint and the police report, the Court stated that “the version of the complainant is slightly varied and incorporated in the police report from what she had given earlier in the complaint.” It observed that “the difference in language has attracted the provisions of Section 354 of IPC.” The Court then recorded 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 Court stated that “the allegation in the complaint against the petitioner attracts the provision of 354A of IPC and not Section 354 of IPC.” It further recorded that “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.”

Also Read: Threat-To-Life Not Required For Legal Heir Under Rule 25(1)(b) When Licensee Is Over 70 Or Held Firearm 25+ Years | Karnataka High Court Quashes Police Refusal In Arms Licence Transfer Case

The Court held: “The criminal petition is partly allowed.” It further directed that “the order passed by XLII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City, taking cognizance of the offence alleged against the petitioner under Section 354 of IPC is hereby set aside. The matter stands remanded back to the trial court to consider whether it is a fit case to condone the delay and pass appropriate orders thereafter in respect of the offence alleged against the petitioner under Section 354A of IPC.”

Advocates Representing The Parties

For the Petitioner: Sri C.V. Nagesh, Senior Advocate and Sri Prabhuling K. Navadgi, Senior Advocate along with Sri Girish Kumar B.M., Advocate
For the Respondents: Prof. Ravivarma Kumar, Senior Advocate along with Sri B.N. Jagadeesh, Addl. SPP, Smt. Urmila Pullat and Smt. Incharа H.M., Advocates for R-1; R-2 served

Case Title: Sri Revanna H.D. vs. State of Karnataka & Another
Case Number: Criminal Petition No.4932 of 2024
Bench: Justice M.I. Arun