Karnataka HC dismisses former CM Yediyurappa’s challenge against Pocso case lodged against him

Former Karnataka CM B S Yediyurappa’s petition sought the quashing of the FIR against him, as well as an order of cognisance and summons issued by the trial court.

Yediyurappa’s petition sought the quashing of the FIR against him, as well as an order of cognisance and summons issued by the trial court. (File photo)

The Karnataka High Court Thursday dismissed former Karnataka chief minister B S Yediyurappa’s challenge to the Pocso case lodged against him. The order was passed by a single-judge bench consisting of Justice M I Arun.

Justice Arun refused to quash the case or interfere with the cognisance taken by the trial court, while stating that the trial court could exempt Yediyurappa from personal appearance. The bench observed, “Taking into consideration the age of accused No. 1 (Yediyurappa) and also the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the presence of accused No. 1 should not be insisted by the trial Court, unless it is necessary.” It stated that further applications by the petitioner against the case could be made before the trial court.

Yediyurappa’s petition sought the quashing of the FIR against him, as well as an order of cognisance and summons issued by the trial court. The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act case against Yediyurappa was registered on March 14 last year, after a woman accused Yediyurappa of inappropriately touching her minor daughter. She stated that the incident had occurred when they went to meet him in February 2024, seeking help in another incident of sexual assault.

Story continues below this ad

With regard to the arguments of Yediyurappa’s counsel, the bench noted that cognisance was the main issue to be considered, “Though the petitioners have been successful to show certain inconsistency in the case of the prosecution, as mentioned above, the same have been considered by this Court… taking into consideration the other material produced by the prosecution, the guilty or innocence of the accused, can be established only after a full-blown trial. Thus, the only question… is whether the trial Court has taken cognizance of the offences alleged and issued process to the accused in the manner known to law.”

The bench found that the trial court had done so and sufficiently applied its mind, explaining, “The trial Court need not conduct a mini trial while taking cognizance. It has considered whether there are sufficient materials produced for proceeding against the accused. It is required to apply its mind and form an opinion by analyzing the materials produced before it. The impugned order shows that the trial Court has done so.”

In arguments made in previous hearings before the high court, Yediyurappa’s counsel Senior Advocate C V Nagesh had argued that multiple habitual complaints had been made by the deceased complainant (victim’s mother) in various accusations against senior police officers and bureaucrats. He had also questioned why the matter had not been immediately raised with the Commissioner of Police, whom the complainant had met with shortly after. On the other hand, Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Ravivarma Kumar stated that these arguments had already been raised in the earlier challenge to cognisance, where the order had left the criminal proceedings intact.

In subsequent proceedings, the SPP had argued that the second cognisance order was a reasoned one, while Nagesh had contended that it had not properly examined evidence afresh, such as the alleged audio recordings.