Karnataka High Court Vacates Stay on Charges Against H D Revanna, Criticizes Lawyer's Conduct
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday vacated an interim order that had restrained a trial court from proceeding to frame charges against Janata Dal (Secular) leader H D Revanna. The court strongly criticized his lawyer for seeking an adjournment, calling it a "great disrespect to the court."
Background of the Case
H D Revanna is accused of involvement in the kidnapping of a victim of alleged rape by his son, Prajwal Revanna. The prosecution alleges that on Revanna's instructions, the woman was abducted to prevent her from filing a sexual assault complaint against Prajwal. The case is registered under sections 364A (kidnapping for ransom), 365 (kidnapping or abducting with intent to confine), and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Court Proceedings and Adjournment Request
A single judge, Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav, passed the order after Revanna's counsel moved a memo seeking an adjournment. The lawyer stated that he had to appear in a case before a magistrate's court and was not ready to commence submissions before the High Court. This request came despite the court's earlier instruction on January 29, which directed the trial court not to proceed with framing charges until the next hearing date and informed the petitioner to be prepared for the February 5 hearing.
Court's Strong Rebuke
In its order, the court noted, "The memo for adjournment before the High Court, which is a court of record, cannot be moved on the ground that counsel has been engaged in a matter to appear before the trial court. Such a request ought not to be made before the high court." Orally, the bench told the counsel, "What kind of adjournment memo you are filing before the High Court. Please understand that it is great disrespect to this court, you saying that you want to go before the magistrate court and you are seeking an adjournment. Don't undermine the authority of the court on record. It is not a matter of ego but definitely it is a matter of impropriety that you come before the high court and say I have to go before the magistrate court."
Vacation of Interim Order
The court observed that the petitioner's lack of readiness indicated an intention not to proceed with the matter diligently. It stated, "In light of the petitioner not being ready, the court is of the impression that petitioner does not intend to go on with the matter with due diligence. There is no other inference that can be drawn, taking note of the lack of readiness to go on with the matter that is on the previous date and today." The court rejected the adjournment request as unreasonable and vacated the interim order, allowing the trial court to proceed with framing charges.
Next Steps
The court has now listed the matter for hearing on February 26. This development marks a significant turn in the legal proceedings against H D Revanna, highlighting the judiciary's stance on procedural diligence and respect for court authority.
The case continues to draw attention due to its political implications and the serious nature of the allegations, involving a prominent JD(S) leader and his son in a high-profile kidnapping and sexual assault scandal.
