Karnataka HC issues interim stay on SIT probe in Dharmasthala case till Nov 12

Bengaluru, Oct 30 (PTI) The Karnataka High Court on Thursday ordered an interim stay on the the Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into allegations of "multiple murders, rapes and burials" in the temple town of Dharmasthala, until November 12.

Justice Mohammad Nawaz passed the interim order on a petition filed by activists Girish Mattanavar, Mahesh Thimmarodi, Jayant T, and Vittal Gowda, who had earlier supported former sanitation worker C N Chinnaiah in filing a first complaint alleging multiple murders and burials in Dharmasthala.

The four had approached the court seeking to quash an FIR registered by the Dharmasthala police in connection with the case.

A controversy erupted after a complainant, later identified as Chinnaiah and arrested on charges of perjury, claimed burying a number of bodies, including those of women with signs of sexual assault, in Dharmasthala over a period of past two decades, with the implications pointing towards the administrators of the local temple.

The petitioners--prominent voices in the movement seeking justice for the 2012 rape-and-murder of a college girl had supported Chinnaiah's allegations. However, they came under the SIT's scrutiny after Chinnaiah presented a skull before a magistrate in July 2025.

The investigation team later found that Chinnaiah had not personally unearthed the skull, and issued repeated summonses to the four activists, suspecting they knew how it was obtained.

After receiving the tenth summons on October 24, the petitioners moved the High Court challenging both the summons and the FIR.

Advocate S Balan, representing them, said the petition questioned the legality of the procedures adopted by the SIT rather than the substance of the allegations.

Balan argued that the FIR filed under Section 211(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) violated procedural norms under Section 174(1)(i) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

According to him, since the statements made by Chinnaiah constituted a non-cognisable offence, the police should have referred the matter to a magistrate instead of proceeding directly with registration of an FIR.

He further contended that the nine additional BNS sections invoked later by the SIT were unlawfully added and contrary to due process.

Opposing the plea, Special Public Prosecutor B N Jagadeesha told the court that the petitioners had been actively involved in demanding an investigation into the multiple murders, burials allegations and had approached senior officers pressing for action.

He argued that Chinnaiah had accused the same activists of coercing him and obstructing the probe.

Jagadeesha maintained that if they feared arrest, they should seek anticipatory bail rather than seek a blanket stay.

The High Court, however, restrained the SIT from pursuing further action until the next hearing and directed that the petitioners not be subjected to any harassment in the meantime.

The petitioners informed the court that they had received nine notices from the SIT--mostly sent via WhatsApp and email--and a tenth notice under Section 35(3) of the BNS, which suggested they could be arrested upon appearing before investigators on October 27. They also noted that the FIR contained no direct allegations against them.

Additionally, they sought the quashing of several sections added later to the same FIR, including BNS Sections 336 (forgery), 230 (fabricating false evidence), 231 (fabricating false evidence to procure conviction), 229 (punishment for false evidence), 227 and 228 (giving or fabricating false evidence), 240 (giving false information about an offence), 236 (false statement in a legally admissible declaration), 233 (using evidence known to be false), and 248 (false charge with intent to injure).

The interim stay has come even as the SIT was preparing to submit its interim report to the government.

The SIT, headed by IPS officer Pronab Mohanty, was also expected to file a complaint report--akin to a chargesheet--before the jurisdictional magistrate concerning alleged perjury and the submission of a skull that investigators claimed was fabricated evidence.

The SIT had recently obtained forensic reports, which reportedly confirmed that the skeletal remains exhumed in Dharmasthala were of male individuals.

The SIT, formed by the state government, which is probing charges, has conducted excavations at multiple locations identified by the complainant in the forested areas along the banks of the Netravathi River in Dharmasthala, where some skeletal remains were found at two sites.

Later, the SIT, recently had again recovered some skeletal remains during a search operation in the Banglegudde forest area near the Nethravathi bathing ghat. PTI COR KSU KH