File photo of police at one site of alleged mass burials in Dharmasthala.
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday stayed a probe into a first information report (FIR) registered in July into a complaint of alleged mass burial of bodies of sexually assaulted women in Dharmasthala following a “voluntary” statement by a person named Chinnaiah.
Curiously, the stay order was passed on a petition filed by four activists — Girish Mattennavar, Mahesh Shetty Thimarody, T. Jayant and Vittala Gowda — who are spearheading the campaign to register a criminal case on the burial charges and to form a Special Investigation Team (SIT).
The SIT had recently issued them a notice under Section 35 (3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, suspecting them of committing a glaring offense of framing a false case instead of treating them as witnesses as was done earlier.
Registration of FIR ‘illegal’
Advocate S. Balakrishnan, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the registration of the FIR itself was “illegal” as the offenses alleged in the complaint filed on the basis of the statements of Chinnaiah (who was earlier treated as a “protected witness” and now produced as an accused) disclosed only a non-cognizable offense and the police could not register it without the permission of the Magistrate.
When additional public prosecutor BN Jagadeesha pointed out to the court that the police registered the FIR only after receiving permission from the judge, another advocate Deepak Khosla, who also appeared for the petitioner, said that though the judge had granted permission, it was not an “express order” within the meaning of Supreme Court judgments. It was therefore not enforceable in the eyes of the law.
Chinnaiah’s withdrawal
Meanwhile, Mr. Jagadeesha pointed out to the court that the petitioners themselves spearheaded the movement to register the FIR besides providing shelter to Chinnaiah. He also pointed out that Chinnaiah admitted in his confession that the information he had initially given about the mass burial was false and that he was acting on the advice of the petitioners and others.
Mr. Balakrishnan also said that this was the ninth notice to the petitioners since the case was registered and earlier they answered questions for nearly 150 hours at the SIT office while challenging the current notice sent to them through WhatsApp.
However, Mr. Jagadeesha told the court that the earlier notices given to the petitioners were as witnesses and this notice was issued with them as accused, based on the statement of Chinnaiah, who worked as a sanitarian in Dharmasthala from 1995-2014.
The additional SPP also clarified to the court that though the notice was issued on October 24 through WhatsApp, they have now been issued fresh written notices asking them to appear for questioning during the first week of November.
No summoning
Hearing the arguments, Justice Mohammad Nawaz had initially ordered that the SIT should not harass the petitioners under the guise of an investigation. Later, the court changed the order saying that the SIT should not summon the petitioner till the next day of hearing after Mr. Khosla insisted on some protection. Finally, the court stayed the investigation based on the FIR after Mr. Khosla persistently urged the court to stay the notices issued by the petitioners and the criminal proceedings.
Published – 30 Oct 2025 21:22 IST
