Karnataka High Court Remands Case Against MLA for Fresh Consideration

FIR Not Barred by Limitation; Court to Decide on Cognizance of Sexual Harassment Charges

In a significant legal development, the Karnataka High Court has remanded a case involving allegations of sexual harassment against Sri. Revanna H.D., a Member of the Legislative Assembly, back to the trial court for fresh consideration. The case, originally filed under Criminal Petition No. 4932 of 2024, was decided on November 19, 2025, by Justice M.I. Arun.

The petitioner, Sri. Revanna H.D., sought to quash the FIR registered against him under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 354A, 354D, 506, and 509, arguing that the complaint, lodged four years after the alleged incidents, was barred by the limitation period specified under Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). However, the High Court clarified that while FIR registration by the police is not barred by limitation, the court's cognizance of such offences is restricted unless the delay is condoned under Section 473 of Cr.P.C.

The complaint, filed on April 28, 2024, by a distant relative and former employee of the petitioner, accused him and his son of sexual harassment. It alleged that the petitioner engaged in inappropriate physical contact and advances. Following the complaint, an FIR was registered, and a police report was subsequently filed charging the petitioner under Sections 354 and 354A of the IPC.

Justice M.I. Arun emphasized that the allegations, if proven, constitute an offence under Section 354A of the IPC, which deals with sexual harassment and carries a maximum punishment of three years. The court noted that the trial court had taken cognizance of the offence under Section 354, which prescribes a higher penalty, without considering the delay in lodging the complaint.

In the judgment, the High Court set aside the trial court's order of cognizance under Section 354 and directed it to reconsider the case for cognizance under Section 354A, taking into account the possibility of condoning the delay as per Section 473 of Cr.P.C. The court underscored the necessity to determine whether extending the limitation period is justified in the interest of justice.

This decision reaffirms the distinction between FIR registration and cognizance by courts, highlighting that while police can register an FIR irrespective of the limitation period, courts must consider the delay when taking cognizance of offences with a limitation period unless adequately justified.

Bottom Line:

FIR and cognizance - FIR can be registered by police irrespective of limitation period under Section 468 Cr.P.C. However, cognizance by courts is barred if limitation period has lapsed unless condoned under Section 473 Cr.P.C.

Statutory provision(s): Section 468 Cr.P.C., Section 473 Cr.P.C., Section 354 IPC, Section 354A IPC

Sri. Revanna H.D. v. State of Karnataka, (Karnataka) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2810949