Introduction:

In the case BS Yediyurappa vs. State of Karnataka (WP 7447/2025 c/w WP 7322/2025), the Karnataka High Court has stayed the order of cognizance and summons issued by a Bengaluru trial court against former Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa and three other accused in a case registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur, while hearing the petition filed by Yediyurappa, observed that the matter required a detailed hearing and granted interim relief by exempting the accused from appearing before the trial court until further orders. The High Court also issued a notice to the complainant. The case stems from allegations made by the mother of a 17-year-old girl, who accused Yediyurappa of sexually assaulting her daughter during a meeting at his residence in Bengaluru in February of the previous year. The case was initially registered by the Sadashivanagar police on March 14, 2024, before being transferred to the Crime Investigation Department (CID), which re-registered the FIR and subsequently filed a chargesheet. The trial court had taken cognizance of the charges based on the CID’s report and had summoned the accused to appear before it on March 15. However, Yediyurappa challenged this order, leading to the High Court’s intervention. Notably, this was the second time cognizance had been taken in the case, as the High Court had previously quashed an earlier order by the Special Court, finding that it lacked application of mind. The Special Court was directed to reconsider the matter, and it subsequently passed a fresh order on February 28, which has now been stayed by the High Court.

Arguments of the Petitioner:

Senior Advocate CV Nagesh, representing BS Yediyurappa, argued that the trial court’s order of cognizance and issuance of summons was mechanical and lacked proper judicial consideration. He pointed out that the earlier order had already been quashed by the High Court for failing to apply judicial mind, and the fresh order suffered from similar deficiencies. Nagesh cast doubts on the credibility of the complaint, emphasizing the delay in filing the FIR and the complainant’s conduct after the alleged incident. He highlighted that the alleged offence was said to have occurred on February 2, 2024, at 11:30 AM, yet the complainant and her daughter met the Commissioner of Police later the same day without reporting the incident. Further, on February 5, they visited Yediyurappa again and even took pictures with him. Despite multiple subsequent meetings with the Commissioner of Police, including on February 20, they did not raise any allegations until March 14, when a complaint was lodged amid political turmoil in the state. This, Nagesh argued, indicated that the complaint was politically motivated. Additionally, he pointed out that several witnesses who were allegedly present at Yediyurappa’s residence during the time of the alleged incident had given statements affirming that nothing untoward had occurred. Nagesh contended that the Special Court had failed to consider these critical aspects and had merely gone through the motions while taking cognizance. He urged the High Court to stay the trial court’s order to prevent unnecessary harassment of his client.

Arguments of the Respondents (State of Karnataka):

Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty, representing the State of Karnataka, opposed the petition, arguing that the trial court had duly considered all material on record before taking cognizance of the case. He emphasized that the trial court had acted in accordance with the High Court’s earlier directions, carefully examining the chargesheet and other evidence before issuing the summons. Shetty contended that there was sufficient material to proceed with the case and that granting a stay at this stage would be detrimental to the prosecution. He also argued that it was inappropriate for the High Court to intervene in the matter before the trial had even begun, as the trial court had only taken cognizance and had not yet made any findings on the merits of the case. The Advocate General maintained that any objections regarding the credibility of the complaint or the statements of witnesses should be raised during the trial rather than being used as grounds to prevent legal proceedings from moving forward. He also pointed out that the case involved serious allegations under the POCSO Act, which warranted a thorough trial rather than premature judicial intervention. The State requested the High Court to allow the trial to proceed unhindered, asserting that the judicial process should not be obstructed merely on the basis of political considerations.

Court’s Judgment:

After hearing both sides, the Karnataka High Court found that the matter required detailed judicial scrutiny before allowing the trial to proceed. Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur observed that while the trial court had issued the cognizance order afresh, the issues raised by the petitioner warranted further examination. The Court granted an interim stay on the order of cognizance and issuance of summons, thereby exempting Yediyurappa and the other accused from appearing before the trial court until the next hearing. However, the Court clarified that this stay was not a final ruling on the merits of the case but merely a temporary measure to ensure that the petitioner’s legal rights were not prejudiced. The High Court also issued a notice to the complainant, directing her to respond to the petition. Noting that the case had already gone through multiple legal challenges, the Court emphasized the need for a comprehensive hearing to determine whether the trial court had properly applied its mind in taking cognizance. The Court did not make any observations on the veracity of the allegations but stated that procedural fairness was essential, particularly in cases involving serious charges under the POCSO Act. The next hearing is expected to focus on whether the trial court’s fresh cognizance order was legally sustainable and whether the case should proceed to trial.