Stay on probe into Dharmasthala burials case lifted by Karnataka HC
text_fields
The Karnataka High Court lifted its stay on the probe into the Dharmasthala burials case on Wednesday after the state presented its reasons in opposition to the petitioners' claims seeking to dismiss the case.
The interim stay was granted on October 30, after hearing a petition filed by activists Girish Mattannavar, Mahesh Shetty Thimarody, T Jayant and Vittala Gowda. The four, who had earlier backed the registration of the very FIR, sought its quashing.
Justice Mohammad Nawaz, while lifting the stay, directed the Special Investigation Team (SIT), which is probing the case, to ensure that no harassment is caused to activists, the Indian Express reported.
The police registered a case based on a complaint by C. N. Chinnaiah, a former sanitation worker, who alleged that he had been forced to bury several bodies secretly in the temple town of Dharmasthala between 1998 and 2014. Following the registration of the FIR, the state government formed a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to look into the matter.
During Wednesday’s hearing, Special Public Prosecutor B. N. Jagadeesha, representing the state government, argued that the petitioners had not approached the court with clean hands. In the statement of objections, he pointed out that the proceedings themselves had been initiated at the behest of the petitioners.
The statement further noted that the activists, who were not accused in the case, had no locus to seek quashing of the investigation simply because they had received a police notice asking them to assist. Jagadeesha also stated that there was no risk of arrest for the petitioners as long as they cooperated with the notice and the ongoing investigation.
The State argued that the complainant, Chinnaiah, had been influenced by the activists. According to the Special Public Prosecutor, upon further examination, Chinnaiah voluntarily admitted that he had filed the complaint and made statements under the direction and active involvement of the petitioners. During this period, he was allegedly under their control—residing in one petitioner’s house—and was instructed on what to say or withhold before the investigating officers.
Chinnaiah was later named as an accused in the case after allegedly providing false evidence. The activists, who had initially supported his complaint, were also implicated.