Complainant-witness with the police in Dharmasthala.
Credit: DH File Photo
Bengaluru: In yet another dramatic turn in the Dharmasthala ‘mass burials’ case, the Karnataka High Court on Thursday stayed the FIR in the sensational case after the four activists who had backed the registration of the very FIR sought its quashing.
Justice Mohammad Nawaz passed the interim order after hearing a petition filed by activists Girish Mattannavar, Mahesh Shetty Thimarody, T Jayant and Vittala Gowda.
During the hearing, the court questioned why a separate FIR had not been registered against the complaint-witness in the case. It stayed the FIR after observing that multiple notices had been issued to the petitioners and noting the concerns that magistrate’s permission before registering a cognisable offence was not proper.
It ordered notices to the respondents — Home Department, DG&IGP and the SIT — directing them to file their responses. The matter has been posted for November 12.
Opposing the petition, the government counsel said the petitioners were “taking the judiciary for a ride”.
The HC’s decision came days after Home Minister G Parameshwara said that he had directed the Special Investigation Team (SIT) to submit the final report in the case.
The FIR was initially registered at the Dharmasthala police station under Section 211(a) of the BNS (failure to provide information to a public servant when a person is legally bound to do so), based on the witness-complainant’s claim that he had buried bodies in and around the temple town between 1995 and 2014.
However, after finding no evidence to support the allegations, the SIT arrested the whistleblower on August 23, by adding relevant sections of BNS related to perjury.
The SIT, in a subsequent statement before a magistrate, stated that the witness-complainant confessed he had been coerced by Thimarody and others to make “false” claims.
Thimarody and other activists then approached the HC challenging the FIR.
They argued that since Section 211 (a) of the BNS pertains to a cognisable offence, prior permission from a magistrate should have been taken before registering the FIR. They also contended that the magistrate’s permission in this case was “improper as it was bereft of any reasoning”.
The petitioners’ advocates further alleged that some of them were made to wait for hours in the SIT office after being summoned.
Additional State Public Prosecutor BN Jagadeesha said none of the petitioners had appeared before the SIT and pointed out the FIR was initially registered at the instance of the petitioners.