Karnataka High Court stays probe in Dharmasthala mass burial case as activists challenge FIR registered based on their own campaign

The High Court of Karnataka on Thursday stayed the investigation based on the First Information Report (FIR) registered in July on a complaint of alleged mass burial of bodies of sexually assaulted women in Dharmasthala based on a “voluntary” statement given by a person by name Chinnaiah.

Curiously, the stay order was passed on the petition filed by four activists -– Girish Mattennavar, Mahesh Shetty Thimarody, T. Jayant, and Vittala Gowda — who are at the forefront of a campaign for registration of criminal case on the allegation of burials, and for constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT).

The SIT had recently issued notice to them under Section 35 (3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, suspecting them to have indulged in cognisable offence in projecting a false case, instead of treating them as witnesses as done earlier.

Registration of FIR ‘illegal’

Advocate S. Balakrishnan, appearing for the petitioners, contended that the registration of the FIR itself was “illegal” as the offences alleged in the complaint filed, based on the statements of Chinnaiah (who was earlier treated as “protected witness” and arraigned as an accused now) had disclosed only non-cognisable offence, and the police could not have registered the FIR without the permission from the magistrate.

When Additional State Public Prosecutor B.N. Jagadeesha pointed to the court that the police had registered the FIR only after taking permission from the magistrate, another advocate Deepak Khosla, also appearing for the petitioners, said that though the magistrate had granted permission, it was “not a speaking order” in terms of the Supreme Court’s judgments. Hence, it was not enforceable in the eyes of the law.

Chinnaiah’s retraction

Meanwhile, Mr. Jagadeesha pointed out to the court that the petitioners themselves had spearheaded the movement for registering FIR besides giving shelter to Chinnaiah. He also pointed out that Chinnaiah, in his confession statement, had admitted that information initially given by him on mass burial was false and that he had acted on the advice of the petitioners and others.

Mr. Balakrishnan also said that this was the ninth notice to the petitioners since registration of the case and they answered questions for nearly 150 hours in the office of the SIT earlier while also challenging the present notice issued to them through WhatsApp.

However, Mr. Jagadeesha told the court that earlier notices given to petitioners were as witnesses and the present notice was issued treating them as accused, based on the confession statement of Chinnaiah, who was working as a sanitary worker in Dharmasthala between 1995-2014.

The Additional SPP also clarified to the court that though the notice was issued on October 24 through WhatsApp, now fresh notices have been issued to them in writing asking them to appear for questioning during November first week.

No summoning

Justice Mohammad Nawaz, who heard the arguments, initially ordered that the SIT should not harass the petitioners in the guise of investigation. Later, the court changed the order stating that the SIT should not summon the petitioners till next date of hearing after Mr. Khosla insisted some protection. Finally, the court stayed investigation based on the FIR after Mr. Khosla persistently urged the court to stay notices issued to the petitioner and criminal proceedings.