The Karnataka High Court declined to quash a case against former Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa under the POCSO Act, citing substantial evidence including an audio recording. However, it criticized the trial court’s initial cognizance order as inadequate. Yediyurappa was granted bail, and the case will be reconsidered by the trial court.
Karnataka: The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash the case against former Chief Minister and BJP leader BS Yediyurappa under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. However, the Court found the trial court’s order taking cognisance of the case to be “bald, laconic, and cryptic,” making it liable to be obliterated.
A Bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna passed the ruling while hearing a petition filed by Yediyurappa to quash the case. The Court noted that there was sufficient material, including an audio recording linking Yediyurappa to the allegations. A forensic report confirmed that the voice in the audio was indeed Yediyurappa’s, and the device had not been hacked. However, the Court clarified:
“These matters would undoubtedly require to be thrashed out in a full-blown trial.”
Despite finding prima facie evidence, the Court quashed the trial court’s common cognisance order dated July 4, 2024, stating:
“The bald, laconic and cryptic order of the (trial) Court is what merits the partial entertainment of the petition … The order of taking cognizance and issuing of process does not bear even a semblance of application of mind.”
The High Court set aside the trial court’s order but maintained that the case, investigation, and final report remain valid. The matter is now remitted back to the trial court for fresh consideration.
“The order of taking cognizance … stands obliterated. The crime, the investigation and the final report, all remain intact.”
Additionally, the Court granted anticipatory bail to Yediyurappa in the same case.
Read Also: Karnataka HC Adjourns Hearing of B.S. Yediyurappa’s POCSO Case, Grants Temporary Relief
The case stems from allegations made by a woman that Yediyurappa molested her 17-year-old daughter when they visited his residence to seek help. The girl’s mother, now deceased, lodged a complaint on March 14, 2024, accusing Yediyurappa of sexual harassment and claiming he tried to cover up the incident by offering money.
Following the complaint, an FIR was registered under:
- Section 8 of the POCSO Act (Sexual assault of a minor)
- Section 354(A) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (Sexual harassment)
On July 4, 2024, a trial court took cognisance of the case along with three other accused, adding charges under:
- Section 204 IPC (Destruction of evidence)
- Section 214 IPC (Offering property to shield someone from legal punishment)
- Section 37 IPC (Co-operation in a crime)
Senior Advocate CV Nagesh, representing Yediyurappa, argued that the additional IPC charges were not applicable to his client, as he was only booked under the POCSO Act and Section 354(A) of IPC.
However, the trial court had stated:
“On being satisfied with prima facie materials placed on record, cognizance is taken for the offences punishable under Section 8 of POCSO Act, Section 354(A), 204, and 214 r/w Section 37 of IPC.”
The CID, which handled the investigation, defended the trial court’s approach, stating that courts routinely take cognisance in this manner in 80% of cases.
Also Read: BS Yediyurappa Seeks Quashing of POCSO Case, Denies Allegations of Sexual Harassment
Justice Nagaprasanna rejected this argument, stating:
“That would not impress this Court to dismiss the petition and permit perpetration of irregularity or illegality by the concerned Court, just because it has become a habit to take cognizance and issue summons in this manner.”
Legal Representation
- BS Yediyurappa & co-accused – Advocates Sandeep Patil, Swamini Ganesh Mohanambal, and CV Nagesh
- CID (Prosecution) – Senior Advocate Prof. Ravivarma Kumar and Special Public Prosecutor Ashok N Naik
- Victim’s family – Advocate S Balakrishnan
Case Title – BS Yeddyurappa v. CID and anr
Read the Judgement here:
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
