Ex-CM Yediyurappa to Karnataka HC in POCSO case filed against him

Questioning the magistrate’s cognizance of a complaint filed against BS Yediyurappa and other accused in a POCSO case, the former CM told the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (December 10) that the complainant was a ‘notorious lady’ who urged the court to look at her statements with a grain of salt.

Senior advocate CV Nagesh earlier argued for Yediyurappa Justice M. Nagaprasannareferred to the complainant and said: “The complaint was filed on March 14 at 10 p.m., approximately a month and a half after the date of the violation. In between, the complainant visited me six times. To get me to comment on the alleged rape cases filed by her. She is a notorious lady“.

He added “Why I draw the attention of the government to this is because I do not simply accept her statement, but look at it with a grain of salt..” He even alleged that the complainant was a mentally challenged person.

He further submitted that the complainant (woman who has passed the last date of life) had filed cases against her husband, son, DGIGP, Leader of Opposition and others, amounting to more than 50 complaints. “The State Government does not dispute this schedule which I have prepared on cases filed by it.he said.

Regarding the perusal of the charge sheet, Nagesh said: “It has to go immediately, is my submission. There is no FSL report, the statement under section 164 is not before the court, yet the magistrate took note and said I have read the documents. It is like a blind man looking for a black cat in a dark room.” He also said the court should not refer the case back to the magistrate.

The high court hearing Yediyurappa’s petition seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings verbally said, “No reasons have been given in the cognizance order.”

Nagesh also refuted the prosecution’s statement that no case had been registered against the complainant. He said “That is an incorrect statement.”

Nagesh also opposed the prosecution’s plea seeking withdrawal of the interim order passed by the court on June 14, restraining the police from arresting Yediyurappa.

He said the offenses against me fall under Section 8 of POCSO, which carries a maximum punishment of five years, and Section 354 IPC, which carries a maximum punishment of three years. Therefore, the investigating agency has issued a notice to me under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

He elaborated further and said that as I had to travel to Delhi for party work, I had informed the officer about this and sought permission to appear at a later date. However, the officer in the interregnum approached the magistrate and obtained a warrant against me.

To a question whether the magistrate could issue a warrant to the petitioner if he evades appearance, Nagesh said: “No, if he goes into hiding.” The court then orally noted:Every day I see NBW being issued because of the questions and proclamations issued.”

Seeking to quash the interim order, Special Public Prosecutor Professor Ravivarma Kumar said: “I do not understand whether it is a grant of bail to the petitioner or a stay of arrest. What is the nature of the placed order? Such protection cannot be afforded in a matter of this nature. Heinous offenses are being committed against the applicant.”

He added “The applicant must be present at court when the victim statement is recorded and the provisional ruling frustrates the court proceedings.”

The court will continue to hear the arguments on Thursday.

Background

According to the complaint filed by the mother of a 17-year-old girl, it was alleged that the accused sexually assaulted her daughter during a gathering in February at his residence in Bengaluru.

On March 14, Sadashivanagar police registered the case, later it was transferred to the CID for further investigation, resulting in the FIR being re-registered.

When Yediyurappa did not participate in the investigation following a notice issued to him, the CID issued a non-bailable warrant against him. The same was challenged before the Karnataka High Court, which had stayed the order say “Here is an ex-CM. He heeded your initial warning and cooperated with the investigation. You then issued a second reminder. Its your power and he said I will come on 17-06-2024, its not his business that he will not come back to Karnataka.”

It had added “He (Yediyurappa) is not some Tom, Dick and Harry; nor is he a dacoit, he is former CM of the state. Will he go into hiding?”

Case Title: BS YEDDYURAPPA AND State of Karnataka

Case No: WP 15522/2024