BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court on Thursday stayed the investigation on the First Information Report (FIR) registered over the alleged mass burial of dead bodies at Dharmasthala in Dakshina Kannada district.
Justice Mohammad Nawaz passed an interim order staying the investigation on the FIR till the next date of hearing after hearing the petition filed by four persons, Girish Mattennavar, Mahesh Shetty, Jayanth T and Vittala Gowda, who claimed they are social activists.
The petitioners had prayed to quash the FIR, which was registered in Belthangady and transferred to the Special Investigation Team (SIT) later, and also challenged the notices issued to them by the SIT.
The counsels for the petitioners, S Balan and Deepak Khosla, argued that the repeated notices have been issued, including on WhatsApp and email, calling for questioning in the guise of an investigation and harassing them.
The notices also impose conditions, including non-interference with witnesses and full cooperation with the investigation, failing which arrest is threatened.
Despite no allegations against them in the complaint or in the confessional statement, they were making them sit in the SIT’s office for more than 15 to 16 hours, they alleged.
Additional State Public Prosecutor B N Jagadeesha, appearing for the SIT, argued that the police have taken permission of the jurisdictional magistrate and notices have been issued under 35(3) of BNSS. But the petitioners are not cooperating with the probe, he argued while vehemently opposing the passing of the interim order.
Jagadeesha said the case was initially registered at the behest of the petitioners after they submitted representations to the government for a probe and they were considered as witnesses. Later, it was found that their allegations were false and malicious. The probe revealed that these petitioners were behind the false claim made by the informer, a former sanitation staff, who claimed that he had buried many bodies in Dharmasthala.
Therefore, the petitioners were treated as suspected accused by the SIT, and notices have been issued. Hence, the court has to consider the statement recorded under Section 164 and allow the investigating agency to continue the probe with a direction to the petitioners to cooperate with the probe, he told the court.
The court, which initially passed the order that the petitioners should not be harassed, later stayed the investigation.