Witness Statements Which Form Part Of Police Report Can Be Seen To Decide Quashing Plea: BS Yedurappa To Karnataka HC In POCSO Case

Former Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa told the Karnataka High Court on Thursday (December 19) that statements of witnesses collected during investigation which forms part of the police report can be looked into by the high court to decide a plea for quashing an offence. 

Justice M Nagaprasanna was hearing the former CM's plea seeking to quash a case registered against him under the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) Act. After hearing the matter for some the court listed it for further hearing on January 7, 2025 and continued the operation of the interim order till then. 

The high court took up the hearing of the petition at around 5.03 pm on Thursday. Senior Advocate CV Nagesh made his submissions on the query posed by the court on Wednesday on whether statements of witnesses could be relied upon to quash proceedings or whether they have to be tested in a trial.

In his submissions Nagesh referred to Section 173 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and said investigation is to be conducted without delay and based on the police report defined under Section 2(r) the magistrate takes cognizance. He said that this report contains statements of witnesses. He said that for the purpose of taking cognizance the magistrate is bound to advert to final report submitted by the police. He said that the statements recorded under Sec 161 and 164 CrPC would form part of the police report.

He added that “In order to seeks benefit of discharge or prosecution seeking order of framing charges, magistrate has to advert to police report.”

Following which he submitted “If Magistrate/sessions court is entitled to look into it can we contend that this honourable court cannot look into the police report which includes statements of witnesses recorded under Sec 161, while deciding a quashing petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC.”

The court had on Wednesday expressed a prima facie view that it was not possible for it to quash proceedings initiated against Yediyurappa solely on the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrpC (Before the Investigating Officer) which have given a contrary view to that of the victim about the alleged incident.

Nagesh said, “A combined reading of provisions of Section 2 (r) and 173 (2) CrPC and the law laid down by the Apex court, would indicate that statements of witnesses and those statements be it recorded under sec 161 or 164 would become part of the record and opinion by IO. That opinion is put to test. Lordships would be examining whether that opinion is right or wrong based on the evidence collected. Therefore, I am required to invite the attention of the court to the evidence collected for seeking quashing the case.”

Around 5.40 pm, the court asked whether parties can consent to continuation of the hearing of the matter. The court orally said, "If we have consent of all parties we will continue...I have no problem if the hearing goes on till 6.30 pm. It should not be said that undue interest is shown”. 

To which Nagesh said, “It takes a long time, lordships have raised a serious issue, yesterday I had stopped abruptly.”

The bench then orally said, “I don't have a problem sitting till 9 pm. Tomorrow it should not be said that beyond court hours undue interest was shown to this case.”

Following which the court in its order recorded that “Matter was heard at length yesterday and today. Sr Adv C V Nagesh submitted he would require 60 more minutes. Adv S Balan also submitted that he would require an hour's time. SPP would also require 60 minutes to refute the submission of Nagesh. Interim order to continue till next date of hearing (January 7, 2025) in the light that the matter is being heard at large". 

Background

As per the complaint filed by the mother of a 17-year-old girl, the accused sexually assaulted her daughter during a meeting in February, at Yediyurappa's residence in Bengaluru.

On March 14, the Sadashivanagar police had registered the case. Later, it was transferred to CID for further investigation which re-registered the FIR and filed a chargesheet.

Case Title: B S Yediyurappa AND The Criminal Investigating Department

Case No: WP 15522/2024