Karnataka High Court

Sri Revanna H D vs State Of Karnataka on 19 November, 2025

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4932 OF 2024
(482 (Cr.PC)/528 (BNSS))

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. REVANNA H.D.
S/O H.D. DEVEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/AT CHENNAMBIKA NILAYA
CHENNAMBIKA CIRCLE
HOLENARASIPURA
HASSAN-573 211.
... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. C.V. NAGESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE AND
SRI. PRABHULING K.NAVADGI, SENIOR ADVOCATE
ALONG WITH SRI. GIRISH KUMAR B.M., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HOLENARASIPURA TOWN POLICE
STATION, HOLENARASIPURA CIRCLE
HASSAN-573 211.
(NOW INVESTIGATED BY SPECIAL
INVESTIGATION TEAM, CID
BENGALURU, #1, CARLTON HOUSE
PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001).
REPRESENTED BY SPP OFFICE
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560 001.
-2-

2. SMT. SHOBHA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
RESIDING AT 17TH WARD
NARASIMHANAYAKA NAGARA
HOLENARASIPURA TOWN
HASSAN-573 211.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY PROF. RAVIVARMA KUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE
ALONG WITH SRI B.N. JAGADEESH, ADDL. SPP.,
SMT. URMILA PULLAT AND
SMT. INCHARA H.M., ADVOCATES FOR R.1;
R.2: SERVED)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.107/2024 DATED 28.04.2024
VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN
REGISTERED AT HOLENARASIPURA POLICE STATION,
HASSAN DISTRICT, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 354(A), 354(D), 506 AND 509 OF IPC
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XLII ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU AND ETC.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 29.10.2025 AND COMING ON
FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL
HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
-3-

CAV ORDER

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section

482 of the Criminal Procedure Code with the following

prayers:

"(i) Quash the FIR in Crime No.107/2024 dated
28.04.2024 vide Annexure-A as against the
petitioner herein registered at Holenarasipura
Police Station, Hassan District, for offences
that are made punishable under Section
354(A), 354(D), 506 and 509 of IPC pending
on the file of the XLII Addl. Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, at Bengaluru, in the interest of
justice.
(ii) Pass such other order/s or grant such other
relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to
grant, in the interest of justice."

2. On 28.04.2024, the complainant

(respondent no.2) filed a complaint against the

petitioner and his son with respondent no.1-Police,

which reads as under:

"gÀªÀjUÉ,
oÁuÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÄÀ ,
ೊ ೆನರ ೕಪ ರ ನಗರ ೕ ಾ ೆ,
ೊ ೆನರ ೕಪ ರ.
-4-

ಾನ ೇ,

ಷಯ:- ೊ ೆನರ ೕಪ ರ ಾಸಕ ೆ . . ೇವಣ! ಾಗೂ ಾಸನ
"ೋಕಸ#ಾ $ೇತ&ದ ಸಂಸದ ಪ&ಜ*+ ೇವಣ! ಅವ-ಂದ "ೈಂ/ಕ 0ೌಜ2ನ
ಾಗೂ 3ೕವ 4ೆದ-5ೆ ಇರುವ ಬ9ೆ: ದೂರು

;ೕಲ=ಂಡ ಷಯ5ೆ= ಸಂಬಂ? ದಂ@ೆ Aಾನು ೊ ೆನರ ೕಪ ರ
BೌC 17Aೇ DಾE2, ನರ ಂಹ Aಾಯಕ ನಗರ, ಇ G ಕುಟುಂಬ ಸ;ೕತ
ಸು ಾರು 10 ವಷ2ಗIಂದ Dಾಸ ರು@ೆJೕAೆ. ನನK ಪL ಈ ಮುಂOೆ ಾಸಕ
ೆ . . ೇವಣ! ಾ ೕಕತ*ದ Aಾಗ"ಾಪ ರದ ರ
G ುವ ಾ ನ Pೇ-ಯ G ಕೂ
5ೆಲಸ ಾಡುLJದQರು. ೆ . ೇವಣ! ಅವರು ನನ9ೆ R ಎಂ "ೇ ಾTೆU+
ನ G ಅಡು9ೆ 5ೆಲಸ 5ೊ ದQರು. ನನ9ೆ ಒಬW ೆಣು! ಮಗIರು@ಾJ ೆ. ಆ5ೆ
ಎ .ಎ .ಎ+. ವ ೆ9ೆ 0ಾ #ಾ ಸ ಾ , ಮದುDೆYಾ/ ಇಬWರು
ಮಕ= ೆZ ಂ[9ೆ ನ\]ಂ[9ೆ Dಾಸ ರು@ಾJ ೆ. ನಮ9ೆ ೆ . . ೇವಣ! ಪLK
^&ೕಮL ಭDಾ` ೇವಣ!ನವರು ನಮ] Tೋದರ@ೆJ ಮಗ ಾ/ದುQ, ನನK ಹLJರದ
ಸಂಬಂ?Yಾ/ರು@ಾJ ೆ. ಈ ಸಂಬಂಧದ ಆbಾರದ ;ೕ"ೆ 2013 ರ G ನನK ಮಗ
Lೕ-5ೊಂಡ ನಂತರ ೆ . . ೇವಣ!ನವರು ನನ9ೆ 5ೆಲಸ 5ೊ ಸುವ 0ಾ/ ೇI
ಮAೆ9ೆ ಬರುವಂ@ೆ ಆ9ಾಗ ೇಳdLJದರ
Q ು. Aಾನು 2015 Aೇ ಇ *ಯ G ಅವರ
ಾLನಂ@ೆ ಅವರ ಾTೆUಲK G 5ೆಲಸ5ೆ= Tೇ-5ೊಂPೆ. ಅ0ಾ/ 4 ವಷ2ಗಳ
ನಂತರ ಅವರ \ದಲAೇ ಪ ತ& ಸೂರe ೇವಣ! ಮದುDೆ ಸಂದಭ2ದ G
ಮAೆಯ G 5ೆಲಸ ಾಡುವಂ@ೆ ಕ ೆ 5ೊಂಡರು. ಅ G ಮೂರೂವ ೆ ವಷ2ಗಳ
5ಾಲ 5ೆಲಸ ಾ 5ೊಂ 0ೆQ. ಅವರ ಮAೆಯ G 5ೆಲಸ5ೆ= Tೇ-5ೊಂಡ 4 Lಂಗಳ
ನಂತರ ೆ . . ೇವಣ! ಅವರು ತಮ] 5ೊಠ 9ೆ ಬರುವಂ@ೆ, 4ಾರಮ] Yಾ5ೆ
5ೆಳ9ೆ ೋ/ೕಯ ಎಂದು, AಾAೇನೂ ಾಡಲG 4ಾ ಎಂದು ನನKನK 5ೊಠ 9ೆ
ಆ ಾ*`ಸುLJದು&. ೆ . . ೇವಣ! ಮAೆಯ G 5ೆಲಸ ಾ 5ೊಂ ದQ ಹುಡುಗರು
ಪ&ಜ*+ ೇವಣ! ಬ9ೆ: ಹುhಾ ಾ/ರುವಂ@ೆ ಎಚj-5ೆ `ೕಡುLJದQರು. ಅವನು
YಾರನೂK RkUಲ,G lೋmಾನDಾ/ರು, 5ೆಟU0ಾ/ Aೋಡು@ಾJAೆ. 5ೊಠ 9ೆ 4ಾ
ಎಂದು ಕ ೆಯು@ಾJAೆ ಹುhಾರು ಎಂದು ನನ9ೆ ಆ9ಾಗ ೇಳdLJದರ
Q ು,ಆ ಮAೆಯ G
6 ಜನ ೆಣು!ಮಕ=ಳd 5ೆಲಸ ಾಡುLJ0ೆವ . ೆಣ]ಕ=ಳd ಕೂಡ ಪ&ಜ*+ ೇವಣ!
ಬಂ0ಾಗ ಭಯDಾಗು@ೆJ ಅಂ@ಾ ಆತಂಕ ೊರ ಾಕುLJದQರು. ೆ . . ೇವಣ!
ತಮ] ಪLK ಭDಾ`ಯುವರು ಮAೆಯ ಲ
G ದ
G ಸಮಯದ G TೊUೕn ರೂoನ G 5ೈ
p ದು ಎ ೆಯುLJದು&, ಹಣು! 5ೊಡುವ Aೆಪದ G ;ೖ ಮುಟುULದ
J ು&. ಒ\];]
ನನK ೕ ೆಯ qC rತುJ "ೈಂ/ಕ 0ೌಜ2ನ ನPೆಸುLJದು&. ಇನುK ಪ&ಜ*+ ೇವಣ!
-5-

Aಾನು ಅಡು9ೆ ಮAೆಯ G0ಾQಗ pಂ[`ಂದ ಬಂದು ;ೖ ಮುಟುU@ಾJ ೊBೆU
#ಾಗದ G 3ಗುಟುLJದು&. ತನ9ೆ ಎ ೆ! ಹಚುjವಂ@ೆ ೆsೕ#ಾರನುK ಕIಸು ಎಂದು
ಮAೆಯ G 5ೆಲಸ ಾಡುLJದQ ಹುಡುಗನ ಮೂಲಕ ೇI ಕIಸುLJದರ
Q ು. Aಾನು
ೆದ-5ೊಂಡು ಮAೆ9ೆ ಓಡುLJ0ೆQ. ಇ0ೇ -ೕLಯ "ೈಂ/ಕ rರುಕುಳಗಳd ನನK
;ೕ"ೆ ಅAೇಕ 4ಾ- ನPೆ[Dೆ. Aಾನು ಈ ಷಯವನK ೊರ9ೆ Yಾ-9ಾದೂ&
ೇ ೆZ ೕಣ ಅಂದು5ೊಳduLJzÉÝ, ಆ0ೆ& ೇI5ೊಂಡ ೆ ನನK ;ೕ"ೆ ಕಳಂಕ
ೊ-ಸು@ಾJ ೆ,ನನK ;ೕ"ೆ ಕಳuತನದ ಆ ೋಪ ೊ-ಸು@ಾJ ೆ ಇ@ಾ [Yಾ/
ಅ G 5ೆಲಸ ಾಡುLJದವ
Q ರು ºÉzÀjPÉ ºÀÄnÖ¹zÀÄæ. gÉÃªÀtÚ ¯ÉÊAVPÀ
QgÀÄPÀÄ¼ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ EµÀÖPÉÌÃ ¤Aw®è. £À£ßÀ ªÉÆ¨ÉÊ¯ï ¥sÆÉ Ã£ï ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èzÀÝ
ಸಂದಭ2ದ G D £ÀA§gïUÉ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä ºÀ®ªÁgÀÄ ¨Áj ªÀiÁªÀÄÆ° ಕ ೆ
ಾಡುLJzÀÄæ. ಆ ಸಂದಭ2ದ G ನನK ಮಗಳd ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°ègÀÄwÛzÄÀ æ. CzÉÃ
CªÀPÁ±À §¼À¹PÉÆAqÀÄ D£ÀAvÀgÀ ಸು ಾರು ಸಲ vೕ 5ಾ+ ಾ
ನನK ಮಗ¼À eÉÆvÉ C¸À¨sÀå ¸ÀA¨sÁµÀuÉ ಮೂಲಕ ಪ&Oೋ[ಸಲು ಯLKಸುwÛzÀÄ.
ಆ0ೆ& CzÀjAzÀ ೆದ-5ೊಂಡ ನನK ಮಗಳd ಆ ನಂಬರನK 4ಾGw ಾ ದಳd.
Aಾನು ಈ ಎ"ಾG "ೈಂ/ಕ rರುಕುಳ, ಒತJಡಗIಂ0ಾ/ 4 ವಷ2ಗಳ pಂ0ೆ ಅವರ
ಮAೆ 5ೆಲಸªÀ£Àß ©lÄÖ §AzÉ. Eದ-ಂದ 5ೋಪ9ೊಂಡ CªÀರು Aಾನು Dಾಸ ದQ
ಮAೆ9ೆ ೕಸರನK ಕI ಆಶ&ಯ vೕಜAೆಯ G ªÀÄAdÆgÁVzÀÝ £ÀªÄÀ ä
ªÀÄ£É¬ÄAzÀ DZÉ ºÁr rರುಕುಳ 5ೊಟUರು. ಮAೆಯ ದ
G Q ಎ"ಾG ವಸುJಗಳನK
ಮತುJ ಒಡDೆಗಳನುK ಕೂಡ ನಮ9ೆ 5ೊkUರುವ [ಲG. ನಮ]ನK ಮAೆyಂದ
ೊರ ಾrದQ5ೆ= ೊ ೆನರ ೕಪ ರ ೕ ಾ ೆ9ೆ ದೂರು `ೕಡಲು ೋ0ಾಗ
ಅವರು ದೂರು *ೕಕ-ಸ ಲG. ನಂತರ Aಾವ ಾಸನ 3"ಾG?5ಾ-ಗೂ ದೂರು
5ೊBೆUವ ನಮ9ೆ Aಾ ಯ ಗ ಲG. ಅ?5ಾ-ಗಳd `ೕವ ೋ/ ೆ . . ೇವಣ!
ಾಗೂ ಭDಾ`ಯವರ 5ಾ 9ೆ RದುQ z; 5ೇI ಆಗ `ಮ] ಸಮTೆ 9ೆ ಪ- ಾರ
ಗುತJ0ೆ ಎಂದು ೇIದರು.

ಇLJೕOೆ9ೆ ಾಸನ 3"ೆGYಾದ ಂತ ಪ&ಜ*+ ೇವಣ! ಅವರ ನPೆ 0ಾQ ೆ ಎನK"ಾದ
"ೈಂ/ಕ 0ೌಜ2ನ ದ vೕಗಳd Dಾ{| ಅ}ನ G ಹ-0ಾ ದುQ, ನನಗೂ
ಕೂಡ 5ೆಲವ vೕಗಳd ಬಂ[ರುತJDೆ. ಅದರ G ಒಬW ಮp ೆಯು ನAೊKಂ[9ೆ
ಚನK ಾಯಪಟUಣ ರTೆJಯ Gರುವ ಅವರ ಗ`Kಕಡ 9ಾ&ಮದ @ೋಟದ ಮAೆಯ G
5ೆಲಸ ಾ 5ೊಂ ದQರು. ಆ ಮp ೆvಂ[ಗೂ ಪ&ಜ*+ ೇವಣ! "ೈಂ/ಕ
0ೌಜ2ನ ನPೆ ರುವ vೕ Aೋ ನನ9ೆ ಭಯ, ಆತಂಕ ಾಗೂ
ಆ~ತDಾyತು. ಆ ಮp ೆಯ vೕ Aೋ ನನK ಮAೆಯ G ಗಂಡ
ಆತಂಕ5ೆ= ಒಳ9ಾ/ ನನK ^ೕಲವನK ±ÀArಸುLJದುQ, `ನK vೕ ಆOೆ9ೆ ಬಂದ ೆ
-6-

ನಮ] ಗL•ೕನು? `ೕನು ಕೂಡ ಪ&ಜ*+ ೇವಣ!`ಂದ 0ೌಜ2ನ 5ೆ=
ಒ ೆ9ಾ/[Qೕಯ ಇ@ಾ [Yಾ/ ಪ&^KಸುLJದುQ, ಇದ-ಂದ ನನ9ೆ ಾನ ಕDಾ/
pಂTೆYಾಗುLJ0ೆ. Aಾನು ಅಂ€ಾ 5ೆಲಸ ಾ ಲG, ಎಂದು ನನK ಪL9ೆ
ೇಳdತJ"ೇ ಇ0ೆQೕAೆ. ಆ0ೆ& ಅವ-9ೆ ಸಂಶಯ ಾ9ೆ•ೕ ಇ0ೆ. ಪ&ಜ*+ ೇವಣ!
ಅವ-ಂದ ಹಲDಾರು ಮp ೆಯರ ;ೕ"ೆ ನPೆದ "ೈಂ/ಕ 0ೌಜ2ನ ಗಳ ಬ9ೆ:
ಪವn k ಸು[QDಾp` 5ಾಯ2ಕ&ಮ ಪ&TಾರDಾ/ದQನK Aೋ ನನ9ಾದ
ಅAಾ ಯ, 0ೌಜ2ನ ಮತುJ ನAೊKಂ[9ೆ 5ೆಲಸ ಾ 5ೊಂ ದQ ಮp ೆಯರು
ಅನುಭ ಸುLJರುವ ಾನ ಕ pಂTೆ ಾಗೂ rರುಕುಳ5ೆ= 5ಾನೂAಾತ]ಕ
ಪ- ಾರ ಪPೆಯಲು bೈಯ2 ಾ 5ೊಂಡು ಸು[QDಾp`9ೆ ಬಂದು ೇI5ೆ
`ೕ 0ೆ. ೆ . . ೇವಣ!, ಪ&ಜ*+ ೇವಣ! ಅವ-ಂದ ಆ/ರುವ "ೈಂ/ಕ
0ೌಜ2ನ , rರುಕುಳ, ಾನ ಕ pಂTೆ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಸ*ಇOೆ•yಂದ ದೂರನುK
`ೕಡುLJ0ೆQೕAೆ. Aಾನು ಾನ ಕDಾಗ ಬಹಳ Aೊಂ[ರುವ ದ-ಂದ ಮತುJ ನಮ9ೆ
3ೕವ ಭಯ ಇರುವ ದ-ಂದ ದಯ ಾ ಸೂಕJ ಭದ&@ೆ ಕ ‚ ಾಗೂ ನನ9ೆ
ಮತುJ ನನK ಮಗI9ೆ ನಮ] ಇƒj9ೆ ರುದ„Dಾ/ "ೈಂ/ಕ 0ೌನ2ನ Dೆಸ/ದ
ೆ . . ೇವಣ!, ಮತುJ ಪ&ಜ*+ ೇವಣ! ರುದ„ ಸೂಕJ 5ಾನೂನು ಕ&ಮ
5ೈ9ೊಳduವಂ@ೆ, Aಾನು 4ೆಂಗಳZ-ನ G ನನK ಪ-ಚಯಸ...ರ lೊ@ೆ ಇದುQ5ೊಂಡು
ಅವರ ಸ ಾಯ[ಂದ ಈ ಗಣrೕಕೃತ ದೂರನುK ತYಾ- ದುQ, Aಾನು ಖುದುQ
ಾ ೆ9ೆ ಾಜ ಾ/ ದೂರನುK `ೕಡಲು 3ೕವ ಭಯ ಇರುವ ದ-ಂದ ನನK
ಪ-ಚಯಸ...-ಂದ ಾಸನ 3"ಾG ೕಸ-9ೆ ಕ ೆ ಾ `ಮ]ಗಳನುK
4ೆಂಗಳZ-9ೆ ಕ ೆ 5ೊಂಡು, ಮುಂ[ನ ಕ&ಮ5ಾ=/ ಮನ ಾ 5ೊಳduLJ0ೆQೕAೆ.
ಾಗೂ Aಾನು ಇರುವ ಸ...ಳದ 9ೌಪ @ೆ 5ಾmಾಡಲು 5ೋ-0ೆ.

ಧನ Dಾದಗ ೆZ ಂ[9ೆ

ಸ...ಳ: 4ೆಂಗಳZರು
¢£ÁAPÀ: 28-04-2024
ತಮ] ಾ* ,
Sd/-

H.S. ೆsೕ#ಾ
ನರ ಂಹAಾಯಕ ನಗರ
17Aೇ DಾE2
ೊ ೆನರ ೕಪ ರ ಾಸನ 3"ೆG "
-7-

3. On the date of filing of the complaint, the

petitioner was a Member of Legislative Assembly from

Holenarasipura Constituency and his son was a Member

of Parliament from Hassan Constituency.

4. The allegations made against the petitioner

herein in the complaint is that, the complainant was a

distant relative of the petitioner and was working as a

maid/cook in his house and at that time, she was

subjected to sexual harassment by the petitioner as

well as his son.

5. The specific allegations of sexual harassment

against the petitioner mentioned in the complaint reads

as follows:

'1. When she used to go to the storeroom, he
used to hold her hand and pull her;
2. In the guise of giving fruits, he used to touch
her body;
3. He used to remove her saree pin and subject
her to sexual harassment.'
-8-

6. It is further alleged in the complaint that she

was threatened by other employees of the house that if

she dared to complain against the petitioner or his

other family members, it would be met with dire

consequences. However, unable to bear the

harassment, complainant left the job in the house of

the petitioner about four years prior to filing of the

complaint. Angered by which, petitioner using his

influence with the help of Police got the complainant

thrown out of her house which was granted to her

under the Ashraya Scheme and had it demolished.

When the complainant tried to give a complaint in the

Police Station thereafter, the Police/Deputy

Commissioner refused to receive the same and instead

they suggested that she should go and fall at the feet

of the petitioner and his wife and beg for mercy. On

account of the alleged threat that the complainant was

subjected to, she was not dare enough to lodge a

complaint, but recently when complaints were lodged

against the son of the petitioner by other persons and
-9-

proceedings were initiated against him, complainant-

respondent no.2 took courage and lodged a complaint

against the petitioner and his son. It is further alleged

that the life threat continues and she has also

requested for suitable protection. Further, the

complaint is lodged in a secret place at Bengaluru.

7. After receipt of the complaint, respondent

no.1-Police have registered a FIR in Crime

No.107/2024 in the Court of the Principal Civil Judge

(Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Holenarasipura, Hassan District for

the offences punishable under Sections 354A, 354D,

506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short

'IPC').

8. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has

preferred the present criminal petition on 27.05.2024.

9. The case of the petitioner is that, the

allegations in the complaint even if presumed to be

true, do not constitute an offence as alleged in the FIR.
- 10 -

Even otherwise, it is submitted that in the light of

Section 468 of Cr.P.C., cognizance of the alleged

offences cannot be taken, as the complaint has been

lodged after a lapse of three years, the limitation which

is prescribed under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. for the

offence punishable with an imprisonment of three years

and below. On the said ground, it is prayed that FIR be

quashed.

10. However, during the pendency of the

proceedings, a police report under Section 173 of

Cr.P.C. (charge sheet) came to be filed against the

petitioner herein and it reads as under:

"1 Aೇ ಆ ೋq ೆ . ೇವಣ! ರವರ ;ೕ ನ 0ೋhಾ ೋಪ ೆ:

ಘನ Aಾ Yಾಲಯದ Dಾ qJಯ G ಬರುವ ಾಸನ 3"ೆGಯ
ೊ ೆನರ ೕಪ ರ bಾನಸ#ಾ $ೇತ&ದ 2018 -ಂದ ಇ ಯ
G ವ ೆಗೂ ಾ
ಾಸಕ ಾ/ರುವ 0ೋhಾ ೋಪಣ ಪತ& 5ಾಲಂ ನಂಬರ: 12 ರ G
ನಮೂ[ ದ 1 Aೇ ಆ ೋq ೆ . ೇವಣ! RC ೆ . 0ೇDೆ9ೌಡ
ಇವರು, ೊ ೆನರ ೕಪ ರದ G ಇರುವ ತಮ] OೆAಾKಂR5ಾ `ಲಯ-^&ೕ ಲ""ೕ
ನರ ಂಹ Tಾ*• ಅನುಗೃಹ ೆಸ-ನ Dಾಸದ ಮAೆಯ ,G ತಮ] ಮತುJ ತಮ]
ಪLK ^&ೕಮL ಭDಾ` ೇವಣ! ರವರ ^mಾರ |ನ ;ೕ ೆ9ೆ
ೊ ೆನರ ೕಪ ರದ pಂದುIದ ವಗ2ಗಳ ;k&w ನಂತರದ 4ಾಲrಯರ
bಾ -2`ಲಯದ G ಗುLJ9ೆ ಆbಾರದ G ಅಡು9ೆ 5ೆಲಸ5ೆ= ಸ ಾಯಕ ಾ/
- 11 -

Aೇ•ಸಲ‚ಟUಂತಹ 0ೋhಾ ೋಪಣ ಪ--ರ 5ಾಲಂ ನಂಬರ: 14 ರ G
ನಮೂ[ ದ ಸಂತ&ಸ... ಮp ೆ Tಾ"-1 ರವರು ಾTೆUೕ+ನ G 5ೆಲಸ
`ವ2pಸುLJ0ಾQಗೂ ತಮ] ಮAೆಯ G 2019 -ಂದ 2022 ರ ವ ೆ9ೆ ಮAೆ
5ೆಲಸ5ೆ= ಬಳ 5ೊಳu"ಾಗುLJದುQ, ಅವರನುK 2020 ರ ,G 1 Aೇ
ಆ ೋqಯವರು ತಮ] ಮAೆಯ G ಅವರ ೆಂಡLYಾದ ^&ೕಮL ಭDಾ`
ೇವ˜ಣ ರವರು ಮAೆಯ G ಇಲG0ೇ ಇರುವ ಸಮಯ Aೊ 5ೊಂಡು, ಮAೆ
5ೆಲಸ ಾಡುDಾಗ ಸಂತ&ಸ... ಮp ೆ Tಾ"-1 ರವರನುK ತಮ] 5ೊಠ 9ೆ
4ಾರಮ] ಏ5ೆ 5ೆಳ9ೆ ೋಗುLJೕYಾ, AಾAೇನು ಾಡ"ಾG 4ಾ ಎಂದು
ಆ9ಾಗ ಕ ೆಯುLJದುQದಲG0ೇ, Tಾ"-3 Tಾ"-4 ಾಗೂ ಇತ ೆ 5ೆಲಸದವ-9ೆ
ಹಣು! 5ೊಡುವ Aೆಪದ G ಅವರ ೊ ೇನರ ೕಪ ರದ Dಾಸದ ಮAೆಯ
\ದಲAೇಯ ಮಹ ಯ ದ
G Q ಮAೆvಳ/ನ TೊUೕn ರೂ•9ೆ
ಕ ೆ 5ೊಂಡು, ಒ4ೊWಬW-ಗೂ ಹಣು! 5ೊಟುU ರೂ•`ಂದ ೊರಗPೆ
ಕಳdpಸು@ಾJ, ಸಂತ&ಸ... ಮp ೆ Tಾ"-1 ರವ-9ೆ "ೈಂ/ಕ rರುಕುಳ ಾಡುವ
ಉ0ೆQೕಶ[ಂದ ಅವ-9ೆ YಾDಾಗಲೂ 5ೊAೆಯ G ಹಣು! 5ೊಡ"ೆಂದು
ಇ- 5ೊಂಡು, ಇತ ೇ 5ೆಲಸ9ಾರರೂ ಹಣು! ಪPೆದು5ೊಂಡು ರೂ•`ಂದ
ೊರ9ೆ ೋದ ನಂತರ ಸಂತ&ಸ... ಮp ೆ Tಾ"-1 ರವರ ಇOೆjಯ
ರುದQDಾ/ 5ೈ p ದು ಎ ೆದು, ಅವರ ;ೖ 5ೈ ಯನುK ಮುkU, ಹLJರ5ೆ=
ಎ ೆದು5ೊಂಡು "ೈಂ/ಕ rರುಕುಳ `ೕ ಕೃತ ಎಸ/ರುವ ಬ9ೆ: ತ`›ೆyಂದ
TಾR@ಾ/ದQ-ಂದ ಕಲಂ: 354, 354(A) ಐ.q. -ೕತ 0ೋhಾ ೋಪ ೆ
ಪkU ಸ G 0ೆ."

11. As can be seen from the charge sheet, the

petitioner has been accused of committing the offences

punishable under Sections 354 and 354A of IPC.

12. Prof. Ravi Varma Kumar, learned Senior

Counsel along with Sri. B.N.Jagadeesha, learned

Additional SPP appearing for respondent no.1-State has
- 12 -

raised the preliminary objection contending that the

criminal petition becomes infructuous in the light of the

police report having been filed and cognizance having

been taken by the trial Court in respect of the offences

alleged against the petitioner herein as both of them

have not been challenged in the instant criminal

petition and what is challenged is only the FIR. It is

further submitted that the complaint is a composite

complaint, wherein, the allegations of sexual

harassment and threat to life have been made against

both the petitioner and his son and in respect of other

accused (son of the petitioner) cognizance has been

taken, police report has been filed for the offences

punishable under Sections 201, 376, 376(2)(k), 354,

354A, 354B, 354D, 506, 509 IPC and Section 66E of

the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the trial has

already commenced.

13. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioner submits that the petition was preferred
- 13 -

before this Court, before filing of the police report by

the State and it is submitted that it does not require

any amendment and if the petitioner is able to show

that there is no prima facie case made out from the

complaint, FIR and the police report or if the petitioner

is able to show that taking cognizance by the Court of

the offences alleged is prohibited under law, the

petitioner would be entitled to the relief prayed for.

14. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anand Kumar

Mohatta and Another vs. State (NCT of Delhi),

Department of Home and Another reported in

(2019) 11 SCC 706, wherein, paragraphs 14, 15 and

16 read as under:

"14. First, we would like to deal with the
submission of the learned Senior Counsel for
Respondent 2 that once the charge-sheet is filed,
petition for quashing of FIR is untenable. We do not
see any merit in this submission, keeping in mind the
position of this Court in Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of
Gujarat. In Joseph Salvaraj A, this Court while
deciding the question whether the High Court could
- 14 -

entertain the Section 482 petition for quashing of
FIR, when the charge-sheet was filed by the police
during the pendency of the Section 482 petition,
observed : (SCC p. 63, para 16)

"16. Thus, from the general conspectus of the
various sections under which the appellant is
being charged and is to be prosecuted would
show that the same are not made out even
prima facie from the complainant's FIR. Even if
the charge-sheet had been filed, the learned
Single Judge could have still examined whether
the offences alleged to have been committed by
the appellant were prima facie made out from
the complainant's FIR, charge-sheet,
documents, etc. or not."

15. Even otherwise it must be remembered that
the provision invoked by the accused before the High
Court is Section 482 CrPC and that this Court is
hearing an appeal from an order under Section 482
CrPC. Section 482 CrPC reads as follows:

"482. Saving of inherent powers of the
High Court.--Nothing in this Code shall be
deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of
the High Court to make such orders as may be
necessary to give effect to any order under this
Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any
court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice."
- 15 -

16. There is nothing in the words of this section
which restricts the exercise of the power of the Court
to prevent the abuse of process of court or
miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the FIR. It
is settled principle of law that the High Court can
exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC even
when the discharge application is pending with the
trial court. Indeed, it would be a travesty to hold that
proceedings initiated against a person can be
interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has
advanced and the allegations have materialised into
a charge-sheet. On the contrary it could be said that
the abuse of process caused by FIR stands
aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge-
sheet after investigation. The power is undoubtedly
conferred to prevent abuse of process of power of
any court."

15. Thus, for the reasons assigned to by the

Apex Court in the aforementioned judgment, in my

opinion, the petitioner can maintain the criminal

petition even if the police report is filed subsequent to

filing of the FIR.

16. As per the police report, which is filed after

the investigation, it is alleged against the petitioner

that when his wife was not there in the house, he used
- 16 -

to call the complainant to his room and used to say

'why are you going down, come here, I will not do

anything to you'. He used to get her and other workers

to the storeroom and he used to give other workers the

fruits and used to send them out and at the end, he

used to hold the hand of the complainant, pull her and

he used to touch her body and used to harass her

sexually. On the said grounds, the petitioner has been

charged with the offences under Sections 354 and

354A of IPC. The offences under Sections 354D, 506

and 509 of IPC are given up.

17. It is the contention of the petitioner that the

difference in the police report and the complaint

against the petitioner herein is not based upon any

material collected during investigation, but is a minor

alteration of the statement of the complainant in order

to harass the petitioner herein, as the complaint

against him is politically motivated due to the animosity

with the present ruling establishment holds against him
- 17 -

and under the circumstances, to decide the case on

hand, the averment in the complaint alone will have to

be considered. It is contended that a little change in

the version of the complainant has been incorporated in

the police report so as to attract the provision of

Section 354 of IPC, wherein the punishment prescribed

is imprisonment for a period upto five years, so that

the delay in filing of the complaint is saved. However,

it is further submitted that even otherwise, based on

the complaint given by the complainant, no FIR could

have been registered against the petitioner herein, as

the contents of the complaint do not allege commission

of an offence by the petitioner which warrants

imprisonment beyond three years and the complaint is

hit by law of limitation as contemplated under Section

468 of Cr.P.C. It is submitted that when the police

could not have registered the complaint, question of

taking up the case for investigation against the

petitioner herein does not arise.
- 18 -

18. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for

the State submits that what is prescribed under Section

468 of Cr.P.C. is a bar to taking cognizance of certain

offences after the lapse of the period of limitation and

not registering the FIR. It is also submitted that

Section 473 of Cr.P.C. provides for extension of the

period of limitation in certain cases. It is submitted

that even if the argument of the petitioner were to be

accepted that the allegations made in the complaint do

not attract punishment of imprisonment beyond three

years, the investigation reveals that the petitioner has

committed an offence under Section 354 of IPC for

which the imprisonment can be upto five years and

even otherwise, this is a fit case for condoning the

limitation as per Section 473 of Cr.P.C and it is

submitted that the trial court has not committed any

error in taking cognizance against accused

No.1/petitioner for the offences alleged. On the said

grounds, it is prayed that the criminal petition be

dismissed.
- 19 -

19. 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. The difference in

language has attracted the provisions of Section 354 of

IPC.

20. Section 354A of IPC reads as under:

"354A. Sexual harassment and punishment
for sexual harassment.-(1) A man committing any
of the following acts-

(i) physical contact and advances
involving unwelcome and explicit
sexual overtures; or

(ii) a demand or request for sexual
favours; or

(iii) showing pornography against the will
of a woman; or

(iv) making sexually coloured remarks,

shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment.
- 20 -

(2) Any man who commits the offence specified
in clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub-section
(1) shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a
term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or
with both.
(3) Any man who commits the offence specified
in clause (iv) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both."

21. Section 354 of IPC reads as under:

"354. Assault or criminal force to woman
with intent to outrage her modesty.-Whoever
assaults or uses criminal force to any woman,
intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he
will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term
which shall not be less than one year but which may
extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine."

22. Perusal of the police report along with the

materials produced reveals that the petitioner is

primarily charged on the allegations made by the

complainant and not from any independent witnesses.

Under the given peculiar facts and circumstances of the

case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is required
- 21 -

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.

23. As the punishment prescribed under Section

354A of IPC is three (03) years and below, the question

that arises for consideration in the instant petition is:

Whether the police could have

registered the FIR after a lapse of three

(03) years and could have taken up the

matter for investigation?

24. Section 468 of Cr.P.C reads as under:

"468. Bar to taking cognizance after
lapse of the period of limitation.--(1)
Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in
this Code, no Court, shall take cognizance of
an offence of the category specified in sub-
section (2), after the expiry of the period of
limitation.
- 22 -

(2) The period of limitation shall be--
(a) six months, if the offence is
punishable with fine only;
(b) one year, if the offence is
punishable with imprisonment for a
term not exceeding one year;
(c) three years, if the offence is
punishable with imprisonment for a
term exceeding one year but not
exceeding three years.
(3) For the purposes of this section, the
period of limitation, in relation to offences
which may be tried together, shall be
determined with reference to the offence
which is punishable with the more severe
punishment or, as the case may be, the
most severe punishment."

25. Section 469 of Cr.P.C reads as under:

"469. Commencement of the period of
limitation.--(1) The period of limitation, in
relation to an offender, shall commence,--
(a) on the date of the offence; or
(b) where the commission of the
offence was not known to the person
aggrieved by the offence or to any police
officer, the first day on which such offence
comes to the knowledge of such person or
to any police officer, whichever is earlier; or
- 23 -

(c) where it is not known by whom
the offence was committed, the first day on
which the identity of the offender is known
to the person aggrieved by the offence or to
the police officer making investigation into
the offence, whichever is earlier.
(2) In computing the said period, the day
from which such period is to be computed
shall be excluded."

26. Section 473 of Cr.P.C reads as under:

"473. Extension of period of
limitation in certain cases.--
Notwithstanding anything contained in the
foregoing provisions of this Chapter, any
Court may make cognizance of an offence
after the expiry of the period of limitations,
if it is satisfied on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case that the delay has
been properly explained or that it is
necessary so to do in the interests of
justice."

27. A bare perusal of the aforementioned

sections reveal that what is barred is taking cognizance

of an offence after the period of limitation as defined in

Section 468 of Cr.P.C., subject to condonation of the

same as per Section 473 of Cr.P.C. No where it is
- 24 -

stated that if a complaint is presented to the police and

based on the contents of the complaint, if the police

are of the opinion that the accused can be charged only

with the offence punishable for three (03) years or

below, then they cannot register the FIR.

28. The petitioner in the course of the

arguments has relied upon the following judgments:

1. Cheminova India Ltd. v. State of Punjab
[(2021)8 SCC 818
2. Bharat Damodar Kale v. State of A.P. [(2003)8
SCC 559]
3. Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P. [2023 SCC
Online SC 951]
4. Karan Menon v. State of Karnataka [Order
dated 29.06.2022 passed in Crl.P.No.9334/2018]
5. Imran Siddiqui v. State of Karnataka [Order
dated 26.07.2022 passed in W.P.Nos.10023/2022
c/w 10029/2022]
6. Sharif Ahmed v. State of Uttar Pradesh
[2024(4) Supreme 224]
7. B.Durga Ram v. The State & another [Order
dated 02.06.2022 passed in Crl.P.No.2072/2017]
- 25 -

8. State of Punjab v. Sarwan Singh [(1981)3 SCC
34]

29. Respondent No.1 has relied upon the

following judgment:

1. Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular
Diseases by its Director Dr. K.M.Cherian and
Others [(2014)2 SCC 62]

30. The case of the petitioner is that based on

the ratio of the aforementioned judgments, the police

could not have registered the FIR itself by virtue of the

provision of Section 468 of Cr.P.C.

31. However, the learned counsel for the

petitioner has failed to show, from the aforementioned

judgments, how a FIR could not have been registered

by the Police by virtue of Section 468 of Cr.P.C. As

already mentioned above, Section 468 of Cr.P.C.

provides for bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the

period of limitation. Cognizance is taken by the Courts

and not by the Police. Before taking cognizance, the
- 26 -

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, as on the

date of the complainant making the complaint, the

Court by virtue of Section 468 of Cr.P.C. cannot take

cognizance of the same, however subject to

condonation of the delay in accordance with Section

473 of Cr.P.C.

32. In the instant case, the petitioner has been

charged with the offences under Sections 354 and

354A of IPC. As the offence under Section 354 of IPC

attracts a punishment upto five years, the trial court

has taken cognizance of the same without examining

the fact that the complaint was lodged after a lapse of

more than four years.

33. However, reading of the complaint as a

whole, I am of the opinion, even if the allegations are

held to be true, it discloses an offence to have been

committed by the petitioner herein under Section 354A
- 27 -

of IPC and not Section 354 of IPC as he is charged in

the police report, as reading of the complaint in

entirety, one cannot attribute intent to outrage the

modesty of a woman as against the petitioner, which is

required to fulfill the conditions as contemplated in

Section 354 of IPC. However, it satisfies the

requirement of sexual harassment as contemplated

under Section 354A of IPC.

34. 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 of Cr.P.C.

35. The criminal petition is filed for quashing the

FIR and not for setting aside the cognizance taken by

the trial court. However, in the course of the

arguments, it is submitted that cognizance was taken

on 09.09.2024 by the XLII Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Bengaluru City, and the case has been
- 28 -

numbered as C.C.No.29064/2024. As there was an

offence alleged punishable under Section 354 of IPC,

the trial court has not considered the question of delay.

Now, as 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, 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 thereafter in respect of taking

cognizance of the offence alleged against the petitioner

under Section 354A of IPC.

36. Hence, the following:

ORDER

(i) The criminal petition is partly allowed;

(ii) 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;

- 29 -

(iii) 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.

Sd/-

(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

hkh./PGG/CH