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

The petitioners sought to quash an FIR registered by Dharmasthala police in connection with the case.

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday temporarily halted the Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into explosive allegations of “multiple murders, rapes, and burials” in the temple town of Dharmasthala, granting an interim stay until November 12.

The SIT during an examination at a site in Dharmasthala in July. (PTI)

Justice Mohammad Nawaz issued the order while hearing a petition filed by activists Girish Mattanavar, Mahesh Thimmarodi, Jayant T, and Vittal Gowda. The four had earlier supported former sanitation worker C. N. Chinnaiah, who first alleged that several people had been killed and buried in Dharmasthala over the past two decades, news agency PTI reported.

The petitioners sought to quash an FIR registered by Dharmasthala police in connection with the case, prompting the court to stay further investigation by the SIT until the next hearing date.

The controversy erupted after Chinnaiah, later arrested on perjury charges—claimed that numerous bodies, including those of women bearing signs of sexual assault, had been secretly buried in the town. His allegations, which hinted at the possible involvement of the temple’s administrators, triggered widespread outrage and led to the formation of the SIT to probe the matter.

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.

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

(With PTI inputs)