BENGALURU: In a setback for former Karnataka chief minister and veteran BJP leader B S Yediyurappa, the Karnataka High Court on Thursday refused to quash the POCSO case registered against him for allegedly molesting a minor girl during a meeting at his residence on February 2, 2024.
The HC upheld the order passed by the trial court on February 28 taking cognisance of the offences and issuing summons to Yediyurappa and three others. However, it asked the trial court not to insist on the presence of Yediyurappa during the trial, considering his age.
Justice M I Arun passed the order, disposing of two separate petitions filed by the former chief minister and three others, questioning the legality of the trial court’s order. The three other petitioners were Aruna M, Rudresha Marulasiddaiah and Mariswamy G, who are accused No. 2 to 4.
“It has to be borne in mind that the trial court need not conduct a mini-trial while taking cognisance. It has been considered whether there are sufficient materials produced for proceeding against the accused. It is required to apply its mind and form an opinion by analysing the materials produced before it. The impugned order shows the trial court has done so. I do not see any error in the manner in which the trial court has taken cognisance of the offences alleged against the accused...” the judge observed.
The HC made it clear that the trial court should decide the case based on evidence, without being influenced by the observations of this court in earlier orders, as well as these petitions.
‘Complainant has ulterior motives’
The complainant-mother and her minor daughter, aged 17, met Yediyurappa on February 2, 2024, to get justice for an earlier sexual assault committed against the minor daughter. At that time, Yediyurappa took the minor girl into a room and allegedly molested her, she claimed.
The complainant had uploaded a video on the incident on her Facebook account. Yediyurappa again got the complainant and her daughter to his house through accused No. 2 to 4. He convinced them, through accused No. 2, to delete the video. It is also alleged that Yediyurappa tried to give money to the complainant and her daughter to keep quiet.
Yediyurappa’s claim
It was contended on behalf of Yediyurappa that the complainant is in the habit of making such allegations with an ulterior motive, and it was a case of political vendetta. He claimed he is an elderly person suffering from several diseases, and it is unimaginable for him to commit the offences. The witnesses present in the house when the alleged incident took place spoke in favour of Yediyurappa.
In the earlier round, the petitioners had challenged the order dated July 4, 2024, passed by the trial court to take cognisance of the offences. The high court came to the conclusion that the allegations made and material collected required a full-blown trial. However, terming the trial court order bald, laconic and cryptic while taking cognisance of the alleged offences, the high court set the order aside and remitted the matter back to the trial court.
Subsequently, the trial court again passed the order on February 28, 2025, which was challenged by the accused on the ground that the allegations are not sustainable in the eyes of law, as a CID investigation does not disclose any offences as alleged.