The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday lifted its stay on the investigation into the Dharmasthala burials case, after the state presented its submissions against the arguments of the petitioners who had sought to quash the case.
The bench of Justice Mohammed Nawaz that heard the matter also directed the Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing the case to refrain from harassing the petitioners — Girish Mattennavar, Mahesh Thimarody, Jayanth T, and Vittala Gowda — during the investigation.
On October 30, Justice Nawaz had ordered a stay on the investigation into the case and also restrained the summons issued to the petitioners, who are activists, by the SIT until the next hearing date.
The police had registered a case based on the complaint of C N Chinnaiah, a former sanitation worker, alleged that he had been forced to bury several bodies secretly in the temple town of Dharmasthala between 1998 and 2014. The state government formed a Special Investigation Team (SIT) days after an FIR was registered.
‘Petitioners had not approached the court with clean hands’
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” and pointed out in the statement of objections that the proceedings themselves were initiated at the behest of the petitioners.
The statement also argued that the activists, not being accused in the matter, have no locus to seek quashing of the case simply because they had received a police notice to assist in the investigation. It was further noted that the petitioners were not at risk of any arrest provided they cooperated with the notice and the investigation.
The statement also noted that the non-cognizable report, which was originally registered, had in fact been forwarded to the jurisdictional magistrate who had given permission to investigate.
Story continues below this ad
The state further contended that the activists had influenced Chinnaiah.
“Therefore, when the complainant was further examined, he revealed his own free volition that he had lodged the complaint and had made the statements as per the instructions and their active connivance of the Petitioners herein….during the entire period, the complainant was in complete control and custody of the petitioner and his associates……staying in the house of one of the petitioners, and all other petitioners were controlling the complainant, including what to say and what not to say before the Respondent Police,” the Special Public Prosecutor argued.
Chinnaiah himself was named an accused in the case after he allegedly submitted false evidence. The activists had initially backed the complaint in this case.
As previously reported by The Indian Express, the petitioners had argued at the time that the FIR included several non-cognizable sections, which had to be added based on a reasoned magistrate’s order. It was also stated that the petitioners had been summoned nine times in the matter for over 100 hours of questioning.