HD Revanna Pulls Back: Karnataka HC Closes Quash Bid on Kidnapping FIR, Opens Door for Discharge Plea

In a procedural pivot, the Karnataka High Court on April 30, 2024, dismissed a criminal petition filed by JD(S) leader HD Revanna seeking to quash an FIR in a serious kidnapping case. Single Judge bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav allowed the withdrawal, granting key liberties for future legal moves. The FIR, registered at K.R. Nagar Police Station (now probed by SIT, CID Bengaluru), alleges offences under Sections 364A (kidnapping for ransom), 365 (abduction), and 34 (common intention) of the IPC .

From FIR to High Court: The Chain of Events

The saga began with FIR No. 149/2024 on May 2, 2024, at K.R. Nagar Police Station in Mysuru Rural sub-division. HD Revanna , a 66-year-old resident of Holenarasipura, Hassan, faced accusations linked to Raju HD , a 20-year-old from K.R. Nagara—the second respondent and complainant. Now under Special Investigation Team (SIT), CID Bengaluru , the case pends before the XLII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru .

Revanna approached the High Court via CRL.P No. 4943/2024 under Section 482 CrPC (equivalent to Section 528 BNSS ), praying to nullify the FIR entirely. But before arguments could unfold, his counsel filed a withdrawal memo.

Strategic Retreat: Petitioner's Move and State's Silence

Revanna's advocate, Sri Girish Kumar BM , submitted a memo stating:
> "The Petitioner most humbly and respectfully seeks leave of this Hon'ble Court to withdraw the above petition with liberty to file discharge application before the Trial Court ."

No detailed arguments from either side appear in the order, as the matter didn't proceed to hearings. The State, represented by Additional SPP BN Jagadeesha , remained unopposed on the withdrawal. This shift suggests a tactical choice to pivot to a discharge application under Section 227 CrPC at the trial stage, potentially testing the prosecution's evidence directly.

Court's Swift Nod: No Merits, But Doors Ajar

Justice Yadav's oral order was straightforward, focusing on procedural fairness:
> "In light of the same, petition is dismissed . Liberty is reserved to take action insofar as the impugned order as is permissible in law . All contentions are kept open. Office objection raised on memo filed, is overruled. Accordingly, petition is disposed of ."

No precedents were invoked, as the ruling hinged purely on the withdrawal request. By overruling office objections and preserving all arguments, the court ensured Revanna's options remain viable downstream.

Key Observations

• > "The Petitioner most humbly and respectfully seeks leave of this Hon'ble Court to withdraw the above petition with liberty to file discharge application before the Trial Court."
• > "Liberty is reserved to take action insofar as the impugned order as is permissible in law. All contentions are kept open."
• > "Office objection raised on memo filed, is overruled."

What It Means: Battle Shifts to Trial Court

This dismissal doesn't vindicate or condemn the allegations—it's a clean procedural exit. Revanna now eyes a discharge plea, where the magistrate will assess if there's prima facie evidence for Sections 364A, 365, and 34 IPC (demanding ransom via kidnapping/abduction). Success here could end proceedings pre-trial; failure sends it to full scrutiny.

For HD Revanna, entangled in broader probes (including related SIT investigations), this preserves ammunition amid political crossfire. Future cases may cite this for flexible handling of withdrawal memos in quashing petitions, emphasizing preserved liberties.