Image of a gavel (for representation).
Credit: iStock Photo
Bengaluru: A special court for MPs/MLAs has dismissed the revision petition filed by an Indian Forest Service officer (IFS) R Ravishankar challenging the trial court order of taking cognisance in a sexual harassment and cheating case. The officer Ravishankar, the husband of IAS officer Thulasi Muddineni, is at present Chief Conservator of Forest, Bengaluru.
The case pertains to the private complaint filed by a woman alleging that the officer had made her to believe that he is her husband and had physical intimacy with her. When he started ignoring her, on enquiry, the complainant claimed to have learnt that the officer was already married to Tulsi Maddineni, who is also named by the complainant as an accused.
On June 18, 2022, the trial court took cognizance for the offences punishable under IPC sections 120B, 354, 354(A), 406, 420, 506, 500 and under section 65 of Information Technology Act. The trial court also posted the matter for recording the sworn statement of the complainant and her witnesses if any.
The officer initially filed the revision petition before the 45th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru and the same was placed before the MPs/MLAs court since one of the accused named by the complainant was Rajarajeshwarinagar MLA Munirathna.
The officer claimed that the complainant was a habitual extortionist and that he had collected information about criminal cases pending against her. According to the officer, the complainant had met him during 2018-19 claiming to be an environmentalist and had sought help for organizing environmental programs, improving plantations etc. He further claimed that prior sanction under CrPC section 197 was required before taking cognizance against him.
Special Judge Santhosh Gajanan Bhat noted that at the time of taking cognizance, the court need not have to consider the case on merits, and it has to ascertain the existence of prima facie materials only. “..it is only a premature stage wherein the trial court has taken cognizance with respect to offences and not against the offender. Even otherwise, the order sheet of the trial court dated 18.06.2022 would clearly indicate that as on that date, the trial court had passed an order with respect to taking of cognizance and thereafter it was posted for sworn statement of the complainant and her witness if any. Under these circumstances, the contentions urged by the revision petitioner are devoid of merits at this juncture,” the court said.
The special court requested the trial court to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible, observing that proceedings were stalled for nearly three years.