Karnataka HC refuses to quash POCSO case against former CM Yediyurappa

Mangalore Today News Network

Bengaluru, Nov 14, 2025: In a setback to former Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa and three other accused, the Karnataka high court on Thursday refused to quash the case registered against them under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Justice MI Arun dismissed the petitions filed by Yediyurappa and three others: Aruna YM, Rudresha Marulasiddaiah and Mariswamy G, challenging the trial court order taking cognizance of the offences and issuance of summons.

The high court further said that the trial court shall not insist upon the appearance of Yediyurappa unless it is necessary. “Taking into consideration the age of accused No 1 (Yediyurappa) and also the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the presence of accused No.1 should not be insisted by the trial Court, unless it is necessary and it should normally entertain any application made by accused No 1 from being exempted from personal appearance,” Justice Arun said.

The complaint was filed by the victim’s mother, who died on May 26, 2024, during the pendency of the case.

The chargesheet filed by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) stated that the mother and her minor daughter, aged 17 years, had gone to Yediyurappa’s house on February 2, 2024 seeking help in getting justice in an earlier sexual assault against the minor daughter. In respect of other accused, it is alleged that they actively collaborated with Yediyurappa in getting the video and photographs, taken by the complainant and the victim, deleted regarding the alleged incident and facilitated the attempt to pay money to them to keep quiet.It is alleged that Yediyurappa had taken the minor girl to a room and molested her. On February 28, 2025, the special court had again taken cognizance as per the orders of the high court in the earlier petition filed by Yediyurappa and others. Challenging the order of taking cognizance, Yediyurappa and others argued that the mother of the victim was a habitual and disgruntled complainant and had registered 58 cases against several people and a few cases were registered against her by several people. Justice MI Arun noted that the trial Court need not conduct a mini trial while taking cognizance.

“Perusal of the impugned order shows that the trial Court has mentioned the allegations in brief and the materials produced in the police report. It has also considered the provisions of law which prescribes the manner in which the cognizance has to be taken, and process has to be issued. It has also considered the case laws in respect of the said provisions. It has to be borne in mind that the trial Court need not conduct a mini trial while taking cognizance. It has 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 that the trial Court has done so. I do not see any error in the manner in which the trial Court has taken cognizance of the offences alleged against the accused and the process that has been issued,” Justice Arun said.

The court further said, “In the instant case, the trial Court is required to decide the case based on the evidence let-in by the parties concerned without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court.”