Bengaluru, Jan 17 (PTI) The Karnataka High Court on Friday reserved its verdict on former Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa's petition seeking to quash a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) case against him.

The BJP leader dismissed allegations that he had intentionally delayed his plea until after the complainant's death, arguing that he could not have predicted when she would pass away.

Also Read | 'No Contradiction in Position': MEA After Indian Army Chief Gen Upendra Dwivedi's 'Degree' of Standoff Exists Between Indian and Chinese Remarks.

The case was filed based on allegations by a woman who claimed that Yediyurappa had sexually assaulted her 17-year-old daughter during a meeting at his residence in Bengaluru in February 2024.

An FIR was registered by Sadashivanagar police on March 14, 2024, before being transferred to the CID, which later filed a chargesheet.

Also Read | Delhi Assembly Election 2025: Central Government Offices in City To Remain Closed on February 5 for Poll.

Senior advocate C V Nagesh, representing Yediyurappa, countered the prosecution's argument that the former CM had deliberately waited until the complainant's death to file his petition.

He stated, "She did not inform me when she would breathe her last. I am not a magician."

This was in response to Special Public Prosecutor Ravivarma Kumar's claim that the timing of the petition raised suspicions.

During the hearing, Justice M Nagaprasanna noted that an FIR is essentially the complainant's statement and assured that relevant legal precedents cited by both parties would be considered.

A key issue discussed was the applicability of Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, which presume the accused guilty unless proven otherwise. The prosecution argued that these provisions placed the burden of proof on Yediyurappa. However, Nagesh contended that such presumptions apply only during trial and not at the stage of quashing an FIR or chargesheet.

Nagesh pointed out that the complainant and her daughter visited Yediyurappa again on February 5, 2024, just days after the alleged incident. He suggested that their primary intention was to seek his help in another legal case rather than pursue allegations against him.

The court observed that the victims had recorded their interaction with Yediyurappa, calling the contents of the recording "disturbing", and stated that all evidence needed thorough examination.

Nagesh argued that the prosecution could not rely solely on the victim's statement while ignoring other witness testimonies. He urged the court to examine the case diary for a complete picture. He also dismissed the relevance of Sections 214 and 204 of the IPC, which relate to concealing or destroying evidence.

Additionally, he questioned the trial court's handling of the case, arguing that it had not properly assessed the matter before taking cognizance. If the high court were to remand the case, he suggested that statements from all witnesses be considered.

He also pointed out that, under Section 41A of the CrPC, authorities should have issued a notice before proceeding, as the charges carry a maximum sentence of five years.

After hearing all parties, the court reserved its verdict and extended the interim order until a final ruling is issued.

(This is an unedited and auto-generated story from Syndicated News feed, LatestLY Staff may not have modified or edited the content body)