Karnataka High Court (again) stays trial court summons to BS Yediyurappa in POCSO case

The Karnataka High Court on Friday stayed a trial court's February 28 order that had taken cognisance (judicial notice) of a sexual harassment case filed against former Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act)..On February 28 this year, a special trial court handling cases under the POCSO Act summoned Yediyurappa in connection with this case in which he is accused of inappropriately behaving with a 17-year-old girl.He was ordered to appear before the trial court on March 15, Saturday. Yediyurappa challenged this cognisance order before the High Court, which granted him interim relief today by staying the trial court proceedings. "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," Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur ordered. .The criminal case against Yediyurappa was registered on the allegations made by a woman that he molested her 17-year-old daughter, who had accompanied her on a visit to the senior BJP leader's residence to seek some help.The girl’s mother, now deceased, lodged a police complaint on March 14, 2024, accusing Yediyurappa of having sexually harassed the girl. She also said in her complaint that the former Chief Minister had tried to hush up the issue by offering her money.Based on this complaint, 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) on charges of sexual harassment of a minor..On July 4 that year, a trial court passed a common cognisance order to take judicial notice of the case registered against Yediyurappa as well as three others accused of offences under Sections 204 (destruction of document to prevent its production as evidence), 214 (offering gifts, property to anyone to shield someone from legal punishment) read with Section 37 (co-operation by doing one of several acts constituting an offence) of the IPC.This was challenged by Yediyurappa before the Karnataka High Court, which quashed the trial court's July 2024 cognisance order on the ground that it was cryptic and passed without any application of mind. The trial court was directed to decide on the aspect of cognisance again.On February 28, Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (First Track Special Court) Judge NM Ramesh passed a fresh cognisance order and directed Yediyurappa and others accused to appear before the court on March 15..Yediyurappa and the other accused persons (petitioners) - Aruna YM, Rudresha Marulasiddhiah and Mariswamy G - have now approached the High Court again, challenging the fresh cognisance order and seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against them.Representing the petitioners, Senior Advocate CV Nagesh argued today that the victim and her mother (informant) had filed the complaint after a delay of one month and twelve days with ulterior motives.He argued that the incident is alleged to have happened on the morning of February 2, 2024. However, the victim and her mother had met the commissioner of police, Bengaluru City, on the same evening but did not mention a word of any such incident having taken place. Nagesh added that similar meetings with the police also took place on February 5 and February 20 but no mention was made of any untoward incident. "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 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," he added..The submissions were vehemently opposed by Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty, who represented the State. He argued that even in an earlier round of litigation, the High Court 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 High Court eventually granted a stay on the trial court's order after noting that a similar interim order was passed in favour of the petitioners in the earlier round of litigation. The matter needed detailed consideration and the State too would need time to respond, the Court further reasoned. .[Read Order].[Read Live Coverage]