The order depicts an ‘’inscrutable face of the sphinx’’. The Karnataka High Court quashes the order taking cognizance of the chargesheet against former CM, B.S. Yeddiyurappa for the offences under the POCSO Act, citing a lack of application of mind.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Writ Petition No. 15522 of 2024 (GM - RES) C/W Writ Petition No. 18538 of 2024 (GM - RES)
Date of Judgment: 07 February 2025
Coram: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna
Legal Provisions Involved:
•Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Sections 354A, 204, 214 read with Section 37
•Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act): Section 8
•Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Section 482

Facts:
The petitioner, Sri B.S. Yediyurappa, former Chief Minister of Karnataka, sought the quashing of proceedings arising from Crime No. 84/2024, later re-registered as Crime No. 9/2024, which alleged offenses under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and Section 354A of the IPC. The complaint was filed by Mamatha Singh, who alleged that the petitioner had sexually assaulted her minor daughter during a visit to his residence on 02-02-2024. The case was later transferred to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) for further investigation.
Procedural History:
•The complaint was registered on 14-03-2024 at Sadashivnagar Police Station.
•The CID took over the investigation and served a notice under Section 41A CrPC on the petitioner, requiring his presence.
•A charge sheet was filed, and the Fast Track Special Court-I, Bengaluru, took cognizance of the offenses on 04-07-2024 and issued summons.
•The petitioner challenged the charge sheet and summons, arguing that the allegations were politically motivated.
Issues:
1.Whether the FIR and proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
2.Whether the order taking cognizance suffers from non-application of mind.
3.Whether the delay in filing the complaint (40 days after the alleged incident) raises doubts about its credibility.
4.Whether the petitioner, being an 82-year-old politician, is capable of committing the alleged offense.
Arguments:
Petitioner:
•The complainant had filed multiple frivolous cases (58 in total), making her a habitual litigant.
•Statements recorded during the investigation did not support the allegations.
•The charge sheet was politically motivated, aimed at tarnishing the petitioner’s reputation.
•The order taking cognizance was a non-speaking order, showing a lack of application of mind.
Respondents (CID & Special Public Prosecutor):
•The court should not assess the merits of evidence at this stage but allow the trial to proceed.
•The voice recording of the petitioner’s conversation with the complainant was confirmed by the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), strengthening the prosecution’s case.
•The cognizance order need not contain detailed reasoning if it sufficiently reflects the court’s satisfaction with the prima facie material.
(i) Writ Petition is allowed in part. 
(ii) The order of taking cognizance by the concerned Court dated 4-07-2024 passed in Crime No.9 of 2024 (Special C.C.No.1283 of 2024) qua accused No.1 stands obliterated. 
(iii) The crime, the investigation and the final report, all remain intact. 
(iv) The matter is remitted back to the hands of the concerned Court to pass appropriate orders on the final report so placed before it by the CID, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order. 
(v) It is made clear that this Court has not answered any of the contentions so advanced by both the learned senior counsel, except the submission with regard to the order of taking cognizance. 
(vi) All other contentions shall remain open. 
The petitioner is at liberty to avail all such remedy, as is available in law, at the appropriate stage before the appropriate forum.