ORDER : M.I.ARUN, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 28.02.2025 passed in Spl.C.C.No.420/2025 arising out of Crime No.9/2024 pending on the file of Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (FTSC-1), Bengaluru, wherein cognizance of the offences alleged has been taken by the Court and process has been issued against the accused, the present writ petitions are filed. 2. Petitioner in W.P.No.7447/2025 is accused of committing an offence which is punishable under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ('the POCSO Act' for short) and Sections 354A, 204, 214 read with Section 37 of IPC. Petitioner is accused no.1 before the trial Court. 3. Petitioners in W.P.No.7322/2025 have been accused of committing an offence which is punishable under Sections 204, 214 read with Section 37 of IPC. Petitioners are accused nos.2 to 4 before the trial Court. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status before the trial court. 5. The charges made against accused no.1 is as follows: 6. The charges made against accused no.2 is as follows: 7. The charges made against accused no.3 is as follows: 8. The charges made against accused no.4 is as follows: 9. In short, the allegations against accused no.1 are that, the mother and her minor daughter, aged 17 years went and met accused no.1, who is the Ex-Chief Minister of Karnataka with a view to get justice for an earlier sexual assault committed against the minor daughter and at that time, accused no.1 took the minor daughter into a room and molested her. Thereafter, the complainant had uploaded a video regarding the incident in her Facebook account. Accused No.1 again got the complainant and her daughter to his house through accused nos.2 to 4, convinced the complainant and her daughter through accused no.2 and got the uploaded video deleted. It is also alleged that accused no.1 tried to pay money to the complainant and her daughter so that they would keep quiet. 10. In respect of other accused, it is alleged that they actively collaborated with accused no.1 in getting the video and photographs deleted regarding the alleged incident and also facilitated the attempt to pay money to complainant and her daughter so that they would keep quiet. 11. The trial Court first took cognizance of the alleged offences on 04.07.2024. 10. In respect of other accused, it is alleged that they actively collaborated with accused no.1 in getting the video and photographs deleted regarding the alleged incident and also facilitated the attempt to pay money to complainant and her daughter so that they would keep quiet. 11. The trial Court first took cognizance of the alleged offences on 04.07.2024. The same was challenged by the petitioners by way of W.P.No.15522/2024 c/w. W.P.No.18538/2024, wherein, this Court came to the conclusion that the allegations made and the materials collected requires a full-blown trial. However, due to the bald laconic and cryptic order of the trial Court passed while taking cognizance of the offences alleged, the impugned order was set aside by allowing the writ petitions in part and the matter was remitted back to the trial Court. This Court in the aforesaid writ petitions has passed the following order insofar as it relates to accused no.1: "(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." It has passed the following order insofar as it relates to accused nos.2 to 4 are concerned: "(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 Nos.2, 3 and 4 also stands obliterated. (iii) The crime, the investigation and the final report, all remain intact. (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 Nos.2, 3 and 4 also 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 petitioners are at liberty to avail all such remedy, as is available in law, at the appropriate stage, before the appropriate forum." 12. Subsequently, the trial Court has again passed the order taking cognizance of the offences alleged against accused nos.1 to 4 on 28.02.2025, which is impugned in the present writ petitions. 13. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the allegations made against the accused are not sustainable in the eye of law. He has submitted that the investigation conducted by the Police do not disclose any offences as alleged against accused nos.1 to 4. 14. However, the aforementioned contention of the petitioners has been negatived by this Court in W.P.No.15522/2024 c/w. W.P.No.18538/2024, wherein, it has been observed that the allegations made against the accused if held to be true, do constitute an offence and whether the said allegations are true or false can be determined only after a full-blown trial. The said order of this Court has attained finality as the same has not been challenged by either of the parties. Thus, though the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has argued the matter at length regarding the fact whether the allegations made against the accused even if were to be held as true, does not constitute an offence as alleged, the same is not open for reconsideration in the light of the order passed in W.P.No.15522/2024 c/w. W.P.No.18538/2024. 15. The petitioners have contended that the complainant is not a rustic or an innocent villager. That she is very well informed person having worldly knowledge of how to utilize law to her advantage. 15. The petitioners have contended that the complainant is not a rustic or an innocent villager. That she is very well informed person having worldly knowledge of how to utilize law to her advantage. It is further contended that she is in the habit of making allegations against other persons with an ulterior motive. It is submitted that there has been an inordinate unexplained delay in filing of the complaint against the accused herein. It is submitted that even though she met the Police Commissioner a couple of days, prior to filing of the complaint and after the incident, has not whispered anything to him. It shows that the complaint is filed against the petitioners with an ulterior motive. 16. It is also contended that the complaint is filed only with political vendetta against the petitioners. It is submitted that accused No.1 is an aged person, who is suffering from several diseases and it is unimaginable for him to commit the offences alleged. It is also submitted that all other witnesses who were present in the house of accused No.1 when the alleged incident took place, they have given statements to the police in favour of the accused and against the version of the complainant, which requires quashing of the proceedings against the petitioners herein. It is submitted that it is only the complainant and her daughter who have made statements against the accused, which cannot be sustained in the light of the statements made by other persons. It was also brought to the notice of the Court that the prosecution did not make the statements of several persons who had deposed in favour of the accused as part of the police report. 17. Though the petitioners have been successful to show certain inconsistency in the case of the prosecution, as mentioned above, the same have been considered by this Court in W.P.No.15522/2024 c/w. W.P.No.18538/2024 and it has been held that taking into consideration the other material produced by the prosecution, the guilty or innocence of the accused, can be established only after a full-blown trial and the same has attained finality. 18. Thus, the only question that arises for consideration in the instant petitions is whether the trial Court has taken cognizance of the offences alleged and issued process to the accused in the manner known to law? 19. 18. Thus, the only question that arises for consideration in the instant petitions is whether the trial Court has taken cognizance of the offences alleged and issued process to the accused in the manner known to law? 19. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the trial Court has mentioned the allegations in brief and the materials produced in the police report. It has also considered the provisions of law which prescribes the manner in which the cognizance has to be taken and process has to be issued. It has also considered the case laws in respect of the said provisions. It has to be borne in mind that the trial Court need not conduct a mini trial while taking cognizance. It has considered whether there are sufficient materials produced for proceeding against the accused. It is required to apply its mind and form an opinion by analyzing the materials produced before it. The impugned order shows that the trial Court has done so. I do not see any error in the manner in which the trial Court has taken cognizance of the offences alleged against the accused and the process that has been issued. 20. Another apprehension is raised by the accused alleging that the proceedings have been initiated against the accused out of political vendetta and there is a possibility that the prosecution may insist upon the trial Court for presence of accused No.1, who is aged and infirm to be present in the Court on every date of hearing and that itself would be a great harassment for him. It is also submitted that the observations made while disposing of W.P.No.15522/2024 c/w. W.P.No.18538/2024 and the present petitions may influence the trial Court and a clarification may be made in this regard. 21. Taking into consideration the age of accused No.1 and also the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the presence of accused No.1 should not be insisted by the trial Court, unless it is necessary and it should normally entertain any application made by accused No.1 from being exempted from personal appearance. 22. Any observations made by this Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is only to decide the case on hand unless otherwise specifically mentioned. 22. Any observations made by this Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is only to decide the case on hand unless otherwise specifically mentioned. In the instant case, the trial Court is required to decide the case based on the evidence let-in by the parties concerned without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court. 23. Hence, the following: ORDER i. The impugned order passed in Spl.C.C.No.420/2025 pending on the file of Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (FTSC- 1), Bengaluru, taking cognizance and issuing summons to the accused under the various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, is upheld; ii. The trial Court shall not insist upon the presence of accused No.1 unless it is necessary during the course of the trial and will entertain the exemption application filed on behalf of accused No.1, unless his presence is essential; iii. The trial Court shall decide the case based on the evidence let-in during the course of the trial without being influenced by the observations of this Court in the orders passed in W.P.Nos.15522/2024 c/w 18538/2024 as well as in the instant petitions; iv. It is needless to state that the petitioners are having the liberty to file necessary application before the trial Court including the one for discharge; v. The writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly.