Yediyurappa was accused of inappropriate behavior with a 17-year-old girl in 2024. The incident allegedly occurred when the girl and her mother visited the former Chief Minister’s residence seeking assistance.
Karnataka: Today, 14th March, The Karnataka High Court has temporarily stayed the trial court’s February 28 order, which had taken judicial notice (cognisance) of a sexual harassment case filed against former Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
Background
Yediyurappa was accused of inappropriate behavior with a 17-year-old girl in 2024. The incident allegedly occurred when the girl and her mother visited the former Chief Minister’s residence seeking assistance.
The girl’s mother, who has since passed away, lodged a police complaint on March 14, 2024, accusing Yediyurappa of molestation and attempting to cover up the incident by offering money.
ALSO READ: POCSO Case || Karnataka HC Grants Anticipatory Bail to EX-CM BS Yediyurappa
Following this, the police registered a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and Section 354(A) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) related to sexual harassment of a minor.
On July 4, 2024, the trial court took judicial notice of the case and also included three others accused under Sections 204 (destruction of evidence), 214 (offering gifts or property to shield someone from punishment), and 37 (co-operation in committing an offence) of the IPC.
However, this order was challenged by Yediyurappa, leading the Karnataka High Court to quash it on the grounds that it was “cryptic” and “passed without any application of mind.”
The High Court directed the trial court to reconsider the cognisance. Subsequently, on February 28, 2025, the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Special Court) NM Ramesh passed a fresh order, summoning Yediyurappa and the co-accused to appear on March 15, 2025.
Challenging this order, Yediyurappa and the other accused – Aruna YM, Rudresha Marulasiddhiah, and Mariswamy G – approached the Karnataka High Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings.
Senior Advocate CV Nagesh, representing the petitioners, argued that the complaint was lodged “after a delay of one month and twelve days with ulterior motives.”
He pointed out that the incident allegedly took place on the morning of February 2, 2024. However, the victim and her mother met the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City, the same evening but “did not mention a word of any such incident having taken place.”
ALSO READ: [POCSO Case] HC Adjourns Hearing On Former CM BS Yediyurappa Plea Till September 27
Nagesh added, “Similar meetings with the police also took place on February 5 and February 20 but no mention was made of any untoward incident.”
He further argued, “If really anything happened, they would have certainly opened their mouth. They don’t say anything… For the first time, when some political developments were happening in the State, after lapse of one month and twelve days, they give a complaint against me… at midnight of March 14… Half a dozen persons were there at my house. Witness after witness would say nothing happened that day at that house.”
Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty, representing the State, opposed the arguments and emphasized that the High Court, during an earlier round of litigation, had observed that the “allegations against Yediyurappa and other co-accused required a full-fledged trial.”
He urged the Court, “not to grant any stay on the trial court proceedings.”
However, the Karnataka High Court decided to grant interim relief to Yediyurappa and the co-accused.
ALSO READ: Karnataka Govt. To High Court: “BS Yediyurappa Should Face Trial in POCSO Act Case”
Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur stated, “Matter requires detailed hearing… There shall be a stay on the order of cognisance (and the) issuance of summons… It is also made clear that accused numbers 1 (Yediyurappa) to 4 (three persons accused of trying to bury evidence of the alleged crime) are personally exempted from appearance before trial court till next date of hearing.”
The High Court also noted that in the earlier litigation, a similar interim order had been passed in favor of the petitioners. The Court emphasized that the matter “needed detailed consideration” and that “the State too would need time to respond.”
Case Title: BS Yediyurappa vs State of Karnataka | WP 7447/2025 c/w WP 7322/2025
