The Karnataka High Court has stayed the investigation into the Dharmasthala mass burial case after four activists, who initially led the campaign demanding the probe, challenged the legality of the FIR. The court questioned the police’s action and stopped the SIT from summoning them till the next hearing.
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court on Thursday stopped the investigation that was based on an FIR registered in July over allegations of a mass burial of bodies of sexually assaulted women in Dharmasthala. The case was filed after a “voluntary” statement was given by a man named Chinnaiah.
Interestingly, the stay order was passed on a petition filed by four activists — Girish Mattennavar, Mahesh Shetty Thimarody, T. Jayant, and Vittala Gowda — who have been leading the campaign demanding a criminal case and the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the alleged mass burials.
Recently, the SIT issued notices to these activists under Section 35 (3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), suspecting that they may have been involved in creating a false case.
Earlier, these activists were treated as witnesses, but now the SIT is treating them as accused persons.
Advocate S. Balakrishnan, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the registration of the FIR itself was “illegal.”
He said that the complaint based on the statement of Chinnaiah — who was earlier treated as a “protected witness” but is now made an accused — mentioned only non-cognisable offences.
Therefore, the police could not have registered an FIR without first getting permission from a magistrate.
However, Additional State Public Prosecutor (SPP) B.N. Jagadeesha told the court that the police had registered the FIR “only after taking permission from the magistrate.”
Another advocate, Deepak Khosla, also representing the petitioners, countered this point. He said that even though the magistrate had granted permission, it was “not a speaking order” as required by the Supreme Court’s previous judgments.
Hence, he argued, the permission was
“not enforceable in the eyes of the law.”
Mr. Jagadeesha also informed the court that the petitioners themselves were the ones who had been pushing for registration of the FIR and that they had also provided shelter to Chinnaiah.
He added that Chinnaiah, in his confession, had admitted that the information he initially gave about the mass burials was false and that
“he had acted on the advice of the petitioners and others.”
Mr. Balakrishnan told the court that this was the ninth notice issued to the petitioners since the case began.
He said that the activists had already spent nearly 150 hours answering questions at the SIT office. He also mentioned that the current notice had been sent to them “through WhatsApp.”
Responding to this, Mr. Jagadeesha clarified that the earlier notices were issued when the petitioners were treated as witnesses.
But now, after the confession by Chinnaiah, the new notice was sent “treating them as accused.” He explained that Chinnaiah had worked as a sanitary worker in Dharmasthala between 1995 and 2014.
The Additional SPP further informed the court that although a notice was sent to the petitioners “on October 24 through WhatsApp,” fresh written notices have now been issued asking them to appear before the SIT during the first week of November.
After hearing the arguments, Justice Mohammad Nawaz initially directed that the SIT
“should not harass the petitioners in the guise of investigation.”
Later, following requests from advocate Deepak Khosla, the court modified the order and stated that the SIT
“should not summon the petitioners till the next date of hearing.”
Finally, after Mr. Khosla strongly urged the court to stop the notices and the ongoing criminal proceedings, the High Court stayed the entire investigation based on the FIR.
The case has raised several questions about how the police handled the FIR, the role of the activists, and the reliability of Chinnaiah’s statements.
With the investigation now stayed, the focus shifts to the court’s next hearing, where the legality of the FIR and the conduct of the SIT are expected to be examined in greater detail.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Dharmasthala Mass Burial Case
