The Karnataka High Court has stayed the fresh summons issued by a Bengaluru Trial Court to former Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa and three other accused in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The summons directed their presence before the court on March 15.
Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur granted the interim relief while hearing a petition filed by Yediyurappa, challenging the trial court's decision to take cognizance of the case. The Bench emphasized that a detailed hearing was necessary and has issued a notice to the complainant.
Read Also:- Karnataka High Court Stays Consumer Commission's Order Against PVR, Citing Lack of Jurisdiction
"There shall be a stay on the order of taking cognizance and issuance of summons by the trial court. It is made clear that accused no. 1 to 4 are personally exempted from appearance before the trial court until the next hearing date." – Karnataka High Court
Background of the Case
Previously, the Karnataka High Court had quashed the earlier order of the Special Court, which took cognizance of the case. The High Court had then directed the Special Court to reconsider the matter and pass a fresh order. On February 28, 2024, the Special Court issued a new cognizance order, which has now been stayed by the High Court.
Read Also:- Karnataka High Court Dismisses ED Summons Against CM Siddaramaiah's Wife And Minister BS Suresh in MUDA Case
According to the complaint filed by the mother of a 17-year-old girl, Yediyurappa allegedly sexually assaulted her daughter during a meeting at his residence in Bengaluru in February last year. The Sadashivanagar Police registered the case on March 14, 2024, before transferring it to the CID for further investigation. The CID subsequently re-registered the FIR and filed a chargesheet.
Arguments by Senior Counsel
Senior Advocate CV Nagesh, representing Yediyurappa, pointed out that the earlier cognizance order was quashed because the Special Court had failed to apply its judicial mind. Raising questions about the credibility of the complaint, Nagesh stated:
"On February 2, 2024, the alleged incident occurred at 11:30 AM. The complainant met the Commissioner of Police the same day but did not mention anything. If such an incident had actually taken place, they would have spoken about it immediately."
Read Also:- Karnataka High Court Petition Challenges Bar Council Extension, Seeks Fresh Elections
He further submitted that the complainant and her daughter met Yediyurappa again on February 5, 2024, and even took photographs with him. They also met the Commissioner of Police multiple times before filing the complaint on March 14, which, according to Nagesh, raises serious doubts about the allegations.
"The witnesses present at Yediyurappa's residence on the day of the alleged offence have stated that nothing happened." – CV Nagesh
Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty, appearing for the State, strongly opposed the petition and argued against granting an interim stay.
"This is not a case where an interim order should be granted. The learned trial judge has carefully considered the order of this court and found that there is sufficient material to proceed further. Staying the trial would be detrimental to the prosecution’s case." – Advocate General
Case Title: BS Yediyurappa vs State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 7447/2025 c/w WP 7322/2025
