<p>Bengaluru: In yet another dramatic turn in the Dharmasthala ‘mass burials’ case, the <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/karnataka-high-court">Karnataka High Court</a> 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. </p>.<p>Justice Mohammad Nawaz passed the interim order after hearing a petition filed by activists Girish Mattannavar, Mahesh Shetty Thimarody, T Jayant and Vittala Gowda.</p>.<p>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.</p>.Dharmasthala case: Skeletal remains that of male individuals, confirms forensic reports.<p>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.</p>.<p>Opposing the petition, the government counsel said the petitioners were “taking the judiciary for a ride”.</p>.<p>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.</p>.<p>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. </p>.<p>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. </p>.<p>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. </p>.<p>Thimarody and other activists then approached the HC challenging the FIR. </p>.<p>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”. </p>.<p>The petitioners’ advocates further alleged that some of them were made to wait for hours in the SIT office after being summoned. </p>.<p>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.</p>
<p>Bengaluru: In yet another dramatic turn in the Dharmasthala ‘mass burials’ case, the <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/karnataka-high-court">Karnataka High Court</a> 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. </p>.<p>Justice Mohammad Nawaz passed the interim order after hearing a petition filed by activists Girish Mattannavar, Mahesh Shetty Thimarody, T Jayant and Vittala Gowda.</p>.<p>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.</p>.Dharmasthala case: Skeletal remains that of male individuals, confirms forensic reports.<p>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.</p>.<p>Opposing the petition, the government counsel said the petitioners were “taking the judiciary for a ride”.</p>.<p>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.</p>.<p>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. </p>.<p>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. </p>.<p>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. </p>.<p>Thimarody and other activists then approached the HC challenging the FIR. </p>.<p>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”. </p>.<p>The petitioners’ advocates further alleged that some of them were made to wait for hours in the SIT office after being summoned. </p>.<p>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.</p>