The Karnataka High Court on Thursday refused to quash the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act case filed against former Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa, paving the way for the trial to proceed before a Special Court in Bengaluru.
Delivering the verdict, Justice M I Arun upheld the February 28 order of the trial court that had taken cognisance of the alleged offence and issued summons to the senior BJP leader. The single-judge bench, however, directed that Yediyurappa’s personal presence should not be insisted upon unless the trial court deemed it essential. It further clarified that any exemption petition filed on his behalf should be considered favourably.
The bench also noted that Yediyurappa retained the right to seek discharge before the trial court at any stage of the proceedings.
The decision marks the second judicial scrutiny of the matter this year. On February 7, the High Court had set aside an earlier cognisance order issued by the Special Court, observing that it lacked proper application of mind, though it had upheld the validity of the investigation and the chargesheet filed by the CID. The Special Court later reissued a fresh order of cognisance on February 28, which was temporarily stayed by the High Court before Thursday’s ruling.
The case stems from a complaint lodged by the mother of a 17-year-old girl who alleged that Yediyurappa sexually assaulted her daughter during a meeting at his residence in Bengaluru in February 2024. The Sadashivanagar police registered a case on March 14, following which the probe was handed over to the CID. The agency re-registered the FIR and subsequently filed a chargesheet against the former Chief Minister.
Also read: Karnataka HC reserves order on Yediyurappa's POCSO plea
Senior Advocate C V Nagesh, representing Yediyurappa, argued before the court that the case was “politically motivated” and that the complaint “lacked credibility”. He contended that the complainant and her daughter had met the Bengaluru Police Commissioner multiple times in February 2024 but had not made any such allegation until March 14.
Nagesh further claimed that “witnesses present at the time of the alleged incident had stated that nothing untoward occurred.” He said the Special Court had acted “mechanically” in taking cognisance of the case without properly evaluating the material on record. The counsel urged the High Court to quash the proceedings, asserting that “the allegations were baseless and driven by ulterior motives.”
Opposing the plea, Special Public Prosecutor Professor Ravivarma Kumar submitted that the trial court had duly examined the case record, including the victim’s statement, before issuing the cognisance order. He maintained that “the trial court’s order was reasoned and reflected proper judicial application of mind.”
With the High Court’s refusal to intervene, the case will now proceed before the Special Court, which will hear the matter under the provisions of the POCSO Act.
Follow us
