Dharmasthala Mass Burial Case Takes a Turn: Activists Move Karnataka HC to Quash FIR Filed on Their Own Complaint
In a surprising twist in the ongoing Dharmasthala mass burial case, the very activists who lodged the original complaint have now approached the Karnataka High Court, seeking to quash the FIR registered on their own plea. They have alleged misuse of legal provisions and inconsistencies in the investigation process.
The controversial case, which sparked widespread debate across Karnataka, pertains to allegations of mass burials — including that of several women — in forested areas near the famous temple town of Dharmasthala in Dakshina Kannada district. The FIR was registered under Section 211(A) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, at the Dharmasthala Police Station.
The initial complaint had been filed by a man identified as Chinnayya, who appeared publicly wearing a mask and was later arrested on charges of perjury and forgery. Following his arrest, the case was taken over by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to verify the claims made in the complaint.
Now, three activists — Girish Mattennavar, Thimmarodi, and Jayant T — have filed a petition before the Karnataka High Court to quash both the FIR and a notice issued to them by the SIT on October 24, 2025. The petitioners contend that the FIR and related proceedings amount to “abuse of legal process” and have requested an immediate stay on all actions stemming from the investigation.
Their plea also seeks to nullify what has been termed the “anti-Dharmasthala conspiracy case,” which was clubbed with the main FIR by police, combining allegations of unnatural deaths and conspiracy under a single investigation.
Meanwhile, SIT officials have indicated that their ongoing probe has revealed multiple discrepancies in the earlier claims. Investigators also allege that significant misinformation has been circulated about the alleged burials, complicating the case further.
The High Court is expected to take up the activists’ petition for hearing soon. The development has added yet another layer of intrigue to a case that continues to capture statewide attention — one that began as an expose but now finds the original complainants themselves questioning the legality of their own actions.
