The Karnataka High Court on Friday, February 7, 2025, refused to quash the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act case against former Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa but set aside the trial court’s order taking cognizance of the case, deeming it “bald, laconic, and cryptic.”
A single-judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that while taking cognizance of an offence, the concerned court must apply its mind before issuing process. The court found that the trial court's order lacked any indication of judicial application of mind, stating, “The order of taking cognizance and issuing of process does not bear even a semblance of application of mind. It runs completely counter to the necessity under Section 190(1)(b) or Section 204 of the Cr.P.C.”
The case originates from allegations made by a woman who accused Yediyurappa of molesting her 17-year-old daughter at his residence. The complainant, who has since passed away, filed a police complaint on March 14, 2024, also alleging that Yediyurappa attempted to suppress the matter by offering her money.
Following the complaint, the police registered an FIR under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and Section 354(A) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for sexual harassment. On July 4, 2024, the trial court took cognizance of the case against Yediyurappa and three others under IPC Sections 204 (destruction of evidence), 214 (offering gifts to shield an offender), and 37 (cooperation in an offence).
The High Court took issue with the manner in which the trial court exercised its jurisdiction, stating that an order taking cognizance must demonstrate sufficient grounds and be supported by recorded reasoning. “Section 204 requires sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, which would mean the Court has to examine the existence of sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused and then issue process,” the court explained. It further emphasized that a judicial order should not merely function as a “post office to the prosecution.”
Finding the trial court’s order to be a “blatant non-application of mind,” the High Court ruled that there was no need to examine arguments regarding the alleged offences at this stage. It underscored that orders must reflect the application of judicial reasoning in writing, warning against an “inscrutable face of the sphinx.”
In light of these findings, the High Court remitted the matter back to the Sessions Judge for fresh consideration. The court directed the trial judge to review the entire material on record and pass an appropriate order on the final report while keeping in mind the observations made in its judgment.
Acknowledging the existence of certain materials, including an audio recording authenticated by forensic analysis, the court clarified that this did not establish Yediyurappa’s guilt. “These matters would undoubtedly require to be thrashed out in a full-blown trial,” the court held.
The High Court, while partially allowing the writ petitions, set aside the trial court’s cognizance order against all accused, including Yediyurappa, and directed reconsideration of the case.
Cause Title: BS Yediyurappa v. CID and Anr. [WP No. 15522 of 2024 (GM - RES) and WP No. 18538 of 2024 (GM – RES)]
Appearance:
For the Petitioner: Advocates C.V. Nagesh, Sandeep Patil, and Swamini Ganesh Mohanambal.
For the Respondents: Prof. Ravivarma Kumar along with Special Public Prosecutor Ashok N. Naik and Advocate S. Balakrishnan for R2.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy