Bengaluru: A special court for MPs and MLAs in Bengaluru has dismissed the revision petition filed by Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer R. Ravishankar challenging the trial court’s order of taking cognisance in a sexual harassment and cheating case. Ravishankar, who currently serves as Chief Conservator of Forest, Bengaluru, is the husband of IAS officer Thulasi Muddineni, who has also been named as an accused in the case.
Background of the Case
The case stems from a private complaint filed by a woman who alleged that Ravishankar had made her believe he was her husband and engaged in physical intimacy with her. The complainant claimed that when Ravishankar began ignoring her, she discovered that he was already married to Thulasi Muddineni, who was also mentioned as an accused.
On June 18, 2022, the trial court had taken cognisance of the case for offences under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including:
- Section 120B (criminal conspiracy)
- Sections 354 and 354(A) (assault or criminal force on a woman)
- Section 406 (breach of trust)
- Section 420 (cheating)
- Section 500 (defamation)
- Section 506 (criminal intimidation)
Additionally, the case included Section 65 of the Information Technology Act. The trial court had also scheduled the matter for recording the sworn statements of the complainant and her witnesses, if any.
Revision Petition and Arguments by IFS Officer
Ravishankar filed the revision petition before the 45th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, which was later placed before the MPs/MLAs court because one of the accused named by the complainant is Rajarajeshwarinagar MLA Munirathna.
In his petition, Ravishankar argued that the complainant was a habitual extortionist and had multiple criminal cases pending. He claimed that the complainant had first approached him in 2018-19, presenting herself as an environmentalist seeking support for environmental programs and plantation initiatives. He further argued that prior sanction under CrPC Section 197 was necessary before taking cognisance against him.
Court Observations and Ruling
Special Judge Santhosh Gajanan Bhat noted that at the stage of taking cognisance, the court is not required to evaluate the case on merits. Instead, the court needs to ascertain the existence of prima facie material to proceed.
The judge observed:
“It is only a premature stage wherein even otherwise, the order sheet of the trial court dated 18.06.2022 clearly indicates that the trial court had passed an order with respect to taking of cognisance, and thereafter it was posted for sworn statement of the complainant and her witnesses. Under these circumstances, the contentions urged by the revision petitioner are devoid of merits at this juncture.”
The special court also requested the trial court to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible, noting that proceedings had been stalled for nearly three years.
Next Steps
The trial court is expected to record the statements of the complainant and her witnesses, and the case will proceed based on the evidence presented. Legal observers note that the case, which involves a high-ranking government officer and an MLA, has drawn significant attention due to the sensitivity and complexity of the allegations.
