<p>Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court on Friday issued an interim stay on a lower court's order to take cognisance and issue summons to former chief minister B S Yediyurappa in a case registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.</p><p>Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur also exempted him from personally appearing before the trial court until the next hearing.</p><p>Yediyurappa and three other accused have filed separate petitions challenging the special court's order dated February 28, 2025. The special court, which handles cases involving elected representatives, had taken cognisance and issued summons to Yediyurappa and others following on the orders passed by the High Court in an earlier round of litigation. On February 7, 2025, the High Court had remitted the matter back to the special court, instructing it to consider taking cognisance of the charge sheet afresh.</p>.'Expulsion of MLAs STS, Hebbar recommended': Karnataka BJP discipline panel head.<p>As per the charge sheet filed by the CID, former chief minister Yediyurappa had sexually harassed a 17-year old girl on February 2, 2024, in his house when she and her mother had come to seek his help in another case. Incidentally, the victim's mother died of cancer on May 26, 2024.</p><p>Appearing for the former chief minister, senior advocate CV Nagesh argued that throughout earlier rounds of litigation, the petitioners had the benefit of a stay on proceedings before the special court. He requested the court to grant the similar benefit in the present petitions.</p><p>On the merits of the case, Nagesh submitted that the alleged incident had taken place on February 2, 2024, around 11 am while the complaint was filed on March 14, 2024, after a month and 12 days. Neither the complainant nor the victim whispered about the incident when they met the Bengaluru police commissioner twice before.</p><p>On the other hand, Advocate General Shashikiran Shetty, appearing for the prosecution, contended that it is not a matter to be considered for interim order as the trial court had already considered all relevant aspects and directions by the high court. He said that prima facie the trial court had come to a conclusion for issuance of summons against the petitioners and the trial has to conclude within stipulated time once after taking cognisance.</p>
<p>Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court on Friday issued an interim stay on a lower court's order to take cognisance and issue summons to former chief minister B S Yediyurappa in a case registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.</p><p>Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur also exempted him from personally appearing before the trial court until the next hearing.</p><p>Yediyurappa and three other accused have filed separate petitions challenging the special court's order dated February 28, 2025. The special court, which handles cases involving elected representatives, had taken cognisance and issued summons to Yediyurappa and others following on the orders passed by the High Court in an earlier round of litigation. On February 7, 2025, the High Court had remitted the matter back to the special court, instructing it to consider taking cognisance of the charge sheet afresh.</p>.'Expulsion of MLAs STS, Hebbar recommended': Karnataka BJP discipline panel head.<p>As per the charge sheet filed by the CID, former chief minister Yediyurappa had sexually harassed a 17-year old girl on February 2, 2024, in his house when she and her mother had come to seek his help in another case. Incidentally, the victim's mother died of cancer on May 26, 2024.</p><p>Appearing for the former chief minister, senior advocate CV Nagesh argued that throughout earlier rounds of litigation, the petitioners had the benefit of a stay on proceedings before the special court. He requested the court to grant the similar benefit in the present petitions.</p><p>On the merits of the case, Nagesh submitted that the alleged incident had taken place on February 2, 2024, around 11 am while the complaint was filed on March 14, 2024, after a month and 12 days. Neither the complainant nor the victim whispered about the incident when they met the Bengaluru police commissioner twice before.</p><p>On the other hand, Advocate General Shashikiran Shetty, appearing for the prosecution, contended that it is not a matter to be considered for interim order as the trial court had already considered all relevant aspects and directions by the high court. He said that prima facie the trial court had come to a conclusion for issuance of summons against the petitioners and the trial has to conclude within stipulated time once after taking cognisance.</p>