‘Great disrespect to court’: Karnataka HC vacates stay on framing charges against H D Revanna, slams his lawyer for seeking adjournment

H D Revanna is accused of involvement in the kidnapping of a victim of alleged rape by his son Prajwal Revanna.

3 min readBengaluruFeb 5, 2026 01:53 PM IST

JD(S) leader H D Revanna (File photo).

The Karnataka High Court Thursday vacated an earlier interim order restraining a trial court from proceeding to frame charges against Janata Dal (Secular) leader H D Revanna, who is accused of being involved in the kidnapping of one of the victims of alleged rape by his son Prajwal Revanna.

A single judge, Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav, passed the order after the counsel for the petitioner moved a memo before the court seeking an adjournment, stating that he has to appear in a case before a magistrate’s court and is not ready to commence submission before the High Court.

Revanna moved the High Court seeking to quash the case registered and chargesheet filed against him under sections 364 A, (kidnapping for ransom), 365 (kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine person) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The prosecution alleged that on the instructions of Revanna, the woman was abducted to ensure she does not file a sexual assault complaint against his son Prajwal.

On January 29, during the hearing, the judge instructed the trial court not to proceed with framing charges until the next hearing date. The petitioner was informed that they must be prepared to proceed with the case at the next hearing on February 5.

However, on Thursday, the counsel appearing for Revanna sought a short adjournment. The court in its order 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.”

The court also observed, “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.”

Story continues below this ad

It added, “When the date of hearing is fixed with a specific direction to the petitioner to proceed with the matter and the petitioner’s counsel not being ready to proceed with the matter. The court is not required to accede to the request. Accordingly, the unreasonable request sought for is rejected. The interim order in operation stands vacated.”

The court has now listed the matter for hearing on February 26.