Supreme Court Questions Karnataka HC's Discharge Of HD Revanna In Sexual Harassment Case, Issues Notice

During the hearing, the Bench expressed reservations over the manner in which the High Court interfered with the proceedings after the trial court had taken cognisance under Section 354 of the IPC.

"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," Justice Pardiwala observed.

The Bench, however, cautioned against conflating the allegations against the father and the son merely because they arose from the same charge sheet. "She was working in their house. She has different allegations for the father and the son," the Court observed.

Seeking clarity on the status of proceedings against Prajwal Revanna, the Bench asked, "What about the son?"

The State informed the Court that charges had already been framed against Prajwal Revanna and that he had not been discharged.

"Charges have been framed. He has not been discharged," the counsel responded.

Illustrating the distinction between individual liability and a common charge sheet, the Bench remarked: "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 argued that both cases formed part of the same transaction and arose out of a common charge sheet.

"It was the same transaction. Same charge sheet," the counsel submitted.

The Bench nevertheless reiterated that the allegations against the two accused were distinct. "Issue notice. She has allegations against both the father and the son," the Court observed while issuing notice in the appeal.

The case stems from allegations made by a former domestic worker employed at the Revanna household. While separate allegations have been levelled against H.D. Revanna and his son Prajwal Revanna, the Karnataka High Court had discharged H.D. Revanna from the sexual harassment case, prompting the State Government to challenge the order before the Supreme Court.

The matter will now be taken up after the respondents file their response to the notice issued by the apex court.