A Bengaluru court on Monday declined to take cognisance of a sexual harassment charge against Janata Dal (Secular) MLA H.D. Revanna, bringing temporary legal relief to the senior politician in a case that has drawn sustained public attention due to his family’s recent controversies. The court cited an inordinate delay in the registration of the complaint as the primary reason for refusing to proceed with the charge under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The order was passed by the 42nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) court in Bengaluru, which was tasked with examining the maintainability of the sexual harassment allegation after the Karnataka High Court had earlier intervened in the matter. Revanna, a former minister and a prominent leader from the JD(S), is also the father of Prajwal Revanna, the former MP who was recently convicted in a separate rape case, adding to the intense scrutiny surrounding the family.

The present case against H.D. Revanna originated from a complaint filed by a woman from Holenarasipur in Hassan district. The woman had accused the MLA of inappropriate conduct, prompting the police to register a case invoking Sections 354 and 354A of the IPC, which deal with outraging the modesty of a woman and sexual harassment, respectively. However, the prosecution faced significant legal hurdles as the case progressed through the courts.

Earlier this year, Revanna approached the Karnataka High Court seeking to quash the charges framed against him. The high court, after hearing arguments, quashed the charge under Section 354 of the IPC, which pertains to assault or criminal force intended to outrage a woman’s modesty. At the same time, the high court did not give a final ruling on the sexual harassment allegation under Section 354A. Instead, it remanded the matter to the trial court, directing it to independently examine whether cognisance of the offence under Section 354A could legally be taken.

Following the high court’s directions, the 42nd ACJM court conducted a fresh examination of the case records and heard detailed submissions from both the prosecution and the defence. After considering the material placed before it, the trial court concluded that the sexual harassment charge could not proceed, primarily due to the delay in the registration of the complaint.

Advocate C.V. Nagesh, who represented H.D. Revanna, said that the trial court carefully evaluated the timeline of events and the legal requirements for taking cognisance of an offence. “The high court had quashed the charge under Section 354 and remanded the matter for consideration of Section 354A. The trial court was required to examine whether the charge under Section 354A could proceed. After hearing arguments and examining the case records, the court declined to take cognisance of the offence,” Nagesh said.

According to legal sources, the delay in lodging the complaint weighed heavily against the prosecution. Courts have consistently held that while delay alone is not always fatal to criminal proceedings, unexplained or inordinate delay in filing a complaint—especially in cases involving personal allegations—can cast doubt on the credibility of the accusation and prejudice the accused’s right to a fair trial. In this case, the magistrate found that the delay had not been satisfactorily explained, making it difficult to proceed with the charge.

Section 354A of the IPC, which was introduced following the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, defines sexual harassment to include unwelcome physical contact and advances, a demand or request for sexual favours, showing pornography against the will of a woman, or making sexually coloured remarks. The provision was enacted to strengthen legal protection against sexual misconduct and to ensure swift and effective action against offenders. However, like all criminal provisions, its application is subject to procedural safeguards, including timely registration of complaints and adherence to due process.

The court’s decision does not amount to a declaration of innocence but reflects a judicial assessment that the legal threshold for proceeding with the case has not been met. Legal experts note that refusal to take cognisance means the court has decided not to formally recognise the offence for trial, effectively halting the proceedings at the threshold stage.

The case has attracted considerable public interest not only because of the seriousness of the allegations but also due to the political stature of the accused. H.D. Revanna has been a key figure in Karnataka politics for decades and is closely associated with the JD(S), a regional party that has played a significant role in the state’s coalition politics. The controversy has come at a time when the party has already been under pressure due to legal troubles involving Prajwal Revanna, further intensifying media and public scrutiny.

Opposition parties and civil society groups have expressed concern in the past over the handling of cases involving influential political figures, arguing that procedural lapses often result in cases collapsing before they reach the stage of a full trial. Supporters of Revanna, on the other hand, have maintained that the allegations were politically motivated and that the court’s order vindicates his stand.

The complainant’s legal options following the trial court’s order remain unclear. In principle, a challenge to the magistrate’s decision could be mounted before a higher court, but such a step would depend on legal advice and the availability of grounds to contest the finding on delay. As of now, there has been no official statement from the complainant or her legal representatives responding to the court’s decision.

The ruling also highlights the broader challenges faced by the criminal justice system in balancing the rights of complainants with the rights of the accused. While laws such as Section 354A were designed to encourage reporting of sexual harassment and to provide robust legal remedies, delays in filing complaints and procedural inconsistencies can significantly weaken cases, especially when they involve high-profile individuals.

For H.D. Revanna, the court’s refusal to take cognisance of the sexual harassment charge marks a significant legal relief, at least for the time being. However, the episode underscores the reputational and political costs that accompany prolonged legal controversies, regardless of their eventual outcome. As the political landscape in Karnataka continues to evolve, the case serves as a reminder of how legal proceedings, procedural rigor, and public perception intersect in matters involving power, accountability, and justice.