With this the high court has stayed the 23rd additional civil and sessions judge CB Hippargi order taking cognisance of five complaints filed by two city based advocates alleging corruption and nepotism against Yeddyurappa and others.
In a further relief to scam-hit chief minister BS Yeddyurappa and his family, Karnataka high court today granted interim stay on a lower court order which had taken cognisance of offences against them in four private complaints.
With this the high court has stayed the 23rd additional civil and sessions judge CB Hippargi order taking cognisance of five complaints filed by two city based advocates alleging corruption and nepotism against Yeddyurappa and others.
Justice KN Keshavanarayana granted the stay on four petitions (filed in connection with four complaints) by Sohan Kumar, son-in-law of Chief Minister, challenging the lower court order.
The court also ordered issue of notices to the two respondents, advocates Sirajin Basha and KN Balaraj.
On March 29, the high court had stayed proceedings in the first complaint, over which the lower court had ordered Lokayukta probe on March 24.
Following the high court stay on the remaining four complaints, further proceedings on five complaints in the Sessions Court comes to a halt till further orders.
The advocates had filed five complaints before the special lok ayukta Court for prosecuting Yeddyurappa and others in January after the Governor H R Bhardwaj accorded sanction for prosecution.
The lower court has completed recording of evidence from complainants on their second complaint and is yet to take up the exercise on the remaining three.
The complaints against Yeddyurappa and others relate to alleged irregularities in denotification of land.
Meanwhile, Karnataka home minister R Ashoka, against whom a private complaint has been taken cognisance of, has got relief following the high court granting interim stay on lower court order till April five.
Justice Keshavanarayana granted the stay on a plea filed by Ashoka, who has been accused of securing denotification of land by Bangalore Development Authority, bending rules.
Ashoka had contested the lower court action of taking cognisance of offence, stating that the governor had refused sanction to prosecute him.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}