Complainant Was A 'Notorious Lady', In The Habit Of Filing Complaints: Ex-CM Yediyurappa To Karnataka HC In POCSO Case Filed Against Him

Questioning the cognizance taken by the magistrate of a chargesheet filed against B S 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" urging the court to look at her statements with a pinch of salt. Senior Advocate C V Nagesh arguing for Yediyurappa before Justice M Nagaprasanna, referred to the complainant and said, “The complaint was lodged on March 14, at 10 pm, after about one and half months to the date of offence. In between the complainant visited me half a dozen times. To make me put a word in the alleged rape cases filed by her. She is a notorious lady". He added “Why I am inviting lordship's attention to this is because do not accept her statement at face value, consider/look at it with a pinch of salt.” He even claimed that the complainant was a mentally retarded person.Further he submitted that the complainant (woman who has expired) had filed cases against her husband, son, DGIGP, Leader of opposition and others which were more than 50 complaints. “The State government is not disputing this chart which I have prepared about cases filed by her,” he said.With respect to the cognizance of the chargesheet Nagesh said, “Straightway it should go, is my submission. There is no FSL report, the statement under section 164 is not before the court but still the Magistrate has taken cognizance saying I have perused the documents. It is like a blind man searching for black cat in a dark room.” He also mentioned that the court should not remand the matter back to the magistrate court.The high court which is hearing Yediyurappa's petition seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings, orally said, “No reasons given in the order taking cognizance.”Nagesh also countered the statement of the prosecution that no case was registered against the complainant. He said “That is an incorrect statement.”Nagesh also opposed the application filed by the prosecution seeking to vacate the interim order passed by the court on June 14, restraining the police from arresting Yediyurappa. He said the offences against me are under Section 8 of POCSO which attracts a maximum sentence of five years and Section 354 IPC which attracts sentence of maximum three years. Thus the investigating office issued me a notice under Section 41A of Criminal Procedure Code. Elaborating further he said since I had to travel to Delhi, for party work I communicated the officer about it and sought leave to appear at a later date. However, the officer in the interregnum approached the magistrate court and got issued a warrant against me. To a query about whether the Magistrate could issue a warrant to the petitioner if he is evading appearance Nagesh said “No, when he is absconding.” The court then orally observed “Everyday I am seeing NBW being issued for the asking and proclamations issued.” Seeking to vacate the interim order, the prosecution's counsel Special Public Prosecutor Professor Ravivarma Kumar said, “I fail to understand whether it is bail granted to petitioner or stay of arrest. What is the nature of order passed?. Such a protection cannot be given in a matter of such nature. Heinous offences are made against the petitioner.” He added “The Petitioner has to be present before the court when the victim statement is recorded and the interim order is frustrating the proceedings before the trial court.” The court will further hear the arguments on Thursday. BackgroundAs per the complaint filed by the mother of a 17-year-old girl, it was alleged that the accused allegedly sexually assaulted her daughter during a meeting in February, at his residence in Bengaluru. On March 14, the Sadashivanagar police registered the case, later it was transferred to CID for further investigation which re-registered the FIR.When Yediyurappa failed to participate in the investigation on a notice issued to him, the CID secured a non-bailable warrant against him. The same was challenged before the Karnataka High Court which had stayed the warrant saying “Here is an Ex-CM. He followed your first notice and cooperated with the investigation. Then you issued a second notice. It is your power and he said I will come on 17-06-2024, it is not his case that he will not come back to Karnataka.”It had added “He(Yediyurappa) is not some Tom, Dick and Harry; nor he is a bandit, he is former CM of the state. Will he abscond?". Case Title: B. S. YEDDYURAPPA ANd State of KarnatakaCase No: WP 15522/2024

Complainant Was A 'Notorious Lady', In The Habit Of Filing Complaints: Ex-CM Yediyurappa To Karnataka HC In POCSO Case Filed Against Him

Mustafa Plumber

Tags