Follow TNM's WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
The Karnataka High Court ordered an interim stay on the investigation into the Dharmasthala mass burials case till November 12. This came at a time when the Special Investigation Team (SIT), led by IPS officer Pronab Mohanty, was all set to submit its interim report to the government and a complaint report (equivalent to a chargesheet) to the Magistrate. This report was regarding perjury and the submission of a skull, which the police said was false evidence.
The SIT had also received FSL reports that confirmed that the two bodies exhumed in Dharmasthala were male.
Justice Mohammad Nawaz passed the order on Thursday, October 30, on a petition filed by activists Girish Mattanavar, Mahesh Thimmarodi, Jayant T, and Vittal Gowda. They had sought the quashing of the FIR filed by the Dharmasthala police based on the complaint of Chinnaiah, who had alleged that he had buried several bodies illegally at the behest of the temple administration in Dharmasthala.
The petitioners had been at the forefront of the ‘Justice for Sowjanya’ movement and had backed the claims made by Chinnaiah. The SIT, however, summoned them nine times over a skull that Chinnaiah produced before a magistrate in July 2025. The SIT had found that Chinnaiah had not exhumed the skull himself and served notices to the four men, who were believed to know how and from where it was exhumed.
On receiving a fresh summons on October 24, the four petitioners approached the court, challenging the summons and seeking the quashing of the FIR.
“The quashing was sought on technical grounds and the procedures adopted by the SIT and not on the merits of the case itself,” said advocate S Balan, who is representing the four petitioners.
The petition says that the FIR registered by the Dharmasthala police under Section 211(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) was a violation of Section 174(1)(i) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which requires the police to record non-cognisable offence information and refer the informant to the Magistrate who would then direct the action to be taken.
Balan argued in court that the Dharmasthala police initially registered a non-cognisable report (NCR) as Chinnaiah’s statements were of a non-cognisable nature. “The police should have referred the informant to the magistrate under Section 174(1)(i) of the BNSS, and it was the magistrate who should have directed action on the basis of the NCR,” Balan told the court.
He also said that the nine BNS sections subsequently added to the FIR against the four petitioners by the Special Investigation Team were illegal, as they were against procedure.
Special Public Prosecutor BN Jagadeesha opposed the petition, stating that activists involved in the mass-burial issue had approached the SP and senior government officials demanding action and had pressured for the investigation. He told the court that Chinnaiah himself had alleged that the same individuals pushed him into wrongdoing and accused the petitioners of trying to interfere with the investigation. The SPP contended that if the petitioners feared arrest, they should seek bail and not expect blanket protection.
Justice Nawaz directed that the petitioners be protected from harassment and stayed the investigation until the next hearing on November 12.
Balan told TNM that the court relied on two judgements of the Karnataka High Court, Vageppa Gurulinga Jangaligi vs State of Karnataka and Rachayya Swamy vs State of Karnataka, on the procedure to deal with non-cognisable offences.
The petitioners also said that they had received nine notices from the SIT to appear for questioning and that they were sent via WhatsApp and email. They said they had received a 10th notice under Section 35(3) of the BNS, which indicated that the petitioners may be arrested on their appearance on October 27.
The petition also notes that the FIR did not contain any allegations against them.
The petitioners also sought the quashing of additional charges invoked later in the same FIR. These include Sections 336 (forgery), 230 (fabricating false evidence), 231 (giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of offence punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment), 229 (punishment for false evidence), 227 (giving false evidence), 228 (fabricating false evidence), 240 (giving false information respecting an offence committed), 236 (false statement made in declaration which is by law receivable as evidence), 233 (using evidence known to be false), and 248 (false charge of offence made with intent to injure) of the BNS.