Karnataka High Court
CRL.P/10051/2026 of PRAJWAL REVANNA Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA on 31 July 2026
CNR: KAHC010466372026 NC: 2026:KHC:40177 CRL.P No. 10051 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10051 OF 2026 BETWEEN: PRAJWAL REVANNA S/O H D REVANNA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10051 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
PRAJWAL REVANNA
S/O H D REVANNA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
KASABA HOBLI,
PADUVALAHIPPI,
HOLENARASIPURA
HASSAN - 573 211
(PRESENTLY SHELTERED
AT BANGALORE CENTRAL JAIL
PARAPPANA AGRAHARA
BANGALORE)
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ARUN G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HOLENARSIPURA TOWN
POLICE STATION
HASSAN -573211
(NOW INVESTIGATED BY
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM, SIT
CID, BENGALURU
NO.1, CARLTON HOUSE
PALACE ROAD BENGALURU -560 001.
REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR OF S.I.T, CID, BANGALORE-560001.
Digitally
signed by
PADMAVATHI
B K
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
2.
MS. X (VICTIM)
R/AT AS FORTHCOMING
IN THE COMPLAINT
(THE DETAILS NOT MENTIONED
PER RATIO IN NIPUN SAXENA Vs. UOI
2018 SCC ONLINE SC 2772)
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.N.JAGADEESHA, SPP-1 FOR R1)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS)
BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS
HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO 1.QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.06.2026 AND CONSEQUENTIALLY
EXPUNGE THE PORTION OF DEPOSITION OF PW.NO.1 LEAD IN
RESPECT
OF
EX.P-23
DATED
24.06.2026
ANNEXURE-F
PENDING IN SPL.C.C.NO.1586/2025 BEFORE THE HONBLE CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE CCH-82 REGISTERED FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 376, 376(2)(k), 354, 354A, 354B, 354D, 506, 509, 201 OF IPC R/W 66(E) OF I.T ACT 2000; (2) TO QUASH
THE
IMPUGNED
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
DATED 24.06.2026 AND CONSEQUENTIALLY EXPUNGE THE PORTION OF DEPOSITION OF P.W-2 LEAD IN RESPECT OF EX.P-23 DATED 24.06.2026 ANNEXURE-G PENDING IN SPL.C.C.NO.1586/2025 BEFORE THE HONBLE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE CCH-82 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 376, 376(2)(k), 354, 354A, 354B, 354D, 506, 509, 201 OF IPC R/W 66(E) OF I.T ACT 2000 & (3)TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01.07.2026 AND CONSEQUENTIALLY EXPUNGE THE PORTION OF DEPOSITION OF PW NO.3 LEAD IN RESPECT OF EX.P-23
HC-KAR
DATED 24.06.2026 ANNEXURE-F PENDING IN SPL.C.C.NO. 1586/2025 BEFORE THE HONBLE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE CCH-82 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 376, 376(2)(k), 354, 354A, 354B, 354D, 506, 509, 201 OF IPC R/W 66(E) OF I.T ACT 2000.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner-accused No.2 in Special C.C.No.1586 of 2025 is before the Court seeking the following prayer:
A) To quash the impugned order dated 24.06.2026 and expunge the portion of deposition of P.W.No.1 lead in respect of Ex.P-23 dated 24.06.2026 Annexure-F, pending in offence Sec.376, 376(2)(k), 354, 354A, 354B, 354D, 506, 509, 201 of IPC r/w 66(E) of IT Act 2000;
B) To quash the impugned order dated 24.06.2026 and consequentially expunge the portion of deposition of P.W.No.2 lead in respect of Ex.P-23 dated 24.06.2026 Annexure-G pending in offence Sec. 376, 376(2)(k), 354, 354A, 354B,
HC-KAR
354D, 506, 509, 201 of IPC r/w 66(E) of IT Act, 2000;
C) To quash the impugned order dated 01.07.2026 and consequentially expunge the portion of deposition of P.W.No.3 lead in respect of Ex.P-23 dated 24.06.2026 Annexure-F pending in offence Sec.376, 376(2)(k), 354, 354A, 354B, 354D, 506, 509, 201 of IPC r/w 66(E) of IT Act 2000.
D) Or pass such other relief which is deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The learned counsel, Sri.G.Arun would vehemently contend that the concerned Court over-ruling the objections of the petitioner of marking of certain electronic evidence i.e., a pen-drive, which is not marked through the competent witnesses has permitted marking of the same. Since the marking is already done, the only relief that the petitioner can seek even according to him is, that the objections that he would file to the said act of the Court marking the electronic evidence not through the author, but in general, should be considered at the relevant point in time.
HC-KAR
3. The learned Special Public Prosecutor would not have any objection to the observation of this Court while disposing the petition that the objections that are already filed to the marking of the electronic evidence not through the authors should be considered at the relevant point in time, notwithstanding the finding rendered in the impugned order qua those objections.
4. The Trial Court to bear in mind, the aforesaid observation, while passing the order, petition stands disposed.
Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE
DH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9