The Supreme Court questioned the Karnataka High Court’s decision to discharge JD(S) leader H.D. Revanna in a sexual harassment case filed by a former domestic worker. “How can the High Court change the charges after the trial court took cognisance?” the Bench asked.
The Supreme Court raised questions about the Karnataka High Court’s decision to discharge JD(S) leader H.D. Revanna in a sexual harassment case brought by a former domestic worker.
The apex court said the High Court should not have effectively altered the nature of the charges after the trial court had already taken cognisance of the offence.
A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran issued notice on an appeal filed by the Karnataka Government challenging the High Court’s discharge order.
During the hearing, the judges expressed concern about how the High Court intervened after the trial court had taken cognisance under Section 354 of the IPC.
Also Read : Denied Bail To Ex MP Prajwal Revanna In Rape Cases: Supreme Court
Justice Pardiwala remarked,
“Issue notice. How can the High Court change the charges? The court took cognisance. Now you have been discharged from Section 354 also? When the court decided to take cognisance only for Section 354 and other charges were dropped, you should have challenged the order. Have some discipline. We are not agreeing with the order of the High Court, but there should be some discipline”.
The State’s counsel argued that the allegations against Revanna’s son, Prajwal Revanna, were more serious and included offences of rape.
The counsel told the Bench that, in Prajwal’s case, the charge was under Section 376. When the Bench asked about the status of the charges, counsel said that charges had been framed and that Prajwal had not been discharged.
To explain the difference between individual charges and the broader structure of a common charge sheet, the Bench noted,
“Consider this. There’s a charge of murder against A and B, and a charge of causing disappearance of evidence against C. C has to be charged and tried only for that. Can you say C faces murder? How can you bring the case of Respondent No. 1 (H.D. Revanna) under Section 376?”
The State responded that the cases related to the same transaction and were connected through a common charge sheet. Counsel submitted that the events were part of the same transaction and relied on the same charge sheet.
Also Read: No Bail for JD (S) MP Prajwal Revanna in Sex Tapes Case
Despite this, the Bench underlined that the allegations against the father and son were distinct.
The Court observed while issuing notice in the appeal,
“Issue notice. She has allegations against both the father and the son,”
The case arises from allegations made by the former domestic worker who was employed in the Revanna household. While separate allegations have been levelled against H.D. Revanna and Prajwal Revanna, the Karnataka High Court had discharged H.D. Revanna from the sexual harassment case.
The Karnataka Government then approached the Supreme Court, and the matter will be considered after the respondents file their responses to the notice issued by the apex court.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE