The Karnataka High Court on Friday said it will hear next month the plea of spiritual guru Sri Sri Ravishankar challenging a First Information Report registered against him over alleged encroachment of public lands in Bengaluru. The spiritual leader has approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR that was instituted by the Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force Police, and on the last date of hearing the Court, while dealing with procedural aspects of the petition, expressed its intention to take up the matter for further hearing in the coming month. The Court’s communication regarding the next hearing date reflects its decision to keep the petition pending and to consider the arguments and materials on record at a later stage, rather than disposing of the plea at the present hearing. On a prior occasion, on January 13, the High Court had stayed the investigation against the petitioner, granting an interim order in his favour as the challenge to the FIR was being considered. The stay of investigation was operative at that point, and it remained in force until the next scheduled hearing before the Court.
During the earlier hearing on January 13, the Special Public Prosecutor submitted before the Court that although the petitioner is an accused in the case, the affidavit filed in support of the petition was sworn to by a devotee of the Ashram, and argued that this was not permissible in the context of criminal proceedings. The Special Public Prosecutor contended that in a criminal proceeding of any nature, an accused cannot be represented by a power of attorney holder, and that a representative of the accused cannot depose to an affidavit, particularly in a proceeding under Article 226 and Article 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Prosecutor’s submission was directed at the procedural requirements, emphasizing that an accused must personally affirm or depose to an affidavit in support of a petition challenging a criminal investigation or the FIR itself. The Prosecutor argued that this defect in the affidavit was such that the petition ought to be dismissed on that basis. In response to this argument, the counsel for the petitioner, identified as P. Prasanna Kumar, opposed the Prosecutor’s contentions and submitted that the rules of the writ proceedings would permit the action taken by the petitioner’s representative, and that if a day’s time was granted, corrective action would be taken to cure any defect in the petition.
The Court, after hearing these submissions, granted time to the petitioner to cure the alleged defect in the affidavit. The interim relief granted on that earlier date was extended to allow the petitioner to correct the procedural defect, and the Court required the petitioner to make the necessary corrections. The Court’s grant of time to cure the defect indicated that the Court was willing to allow the petitioner an opportunity to rectify procedural deficiencies in the filing, rather than striking down the petition outright on procedural grounds at that juncture. On the subsequent hearing before the Bench, presided over by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, it was informed to the Court that the defect had been cured by the petitioner within the time granted. In light of the correction made, the High Court thereafter listed the matter for further hearing on February 5 and continued the operation of the interim order that stayed the investigation against the petitioner. The continuation of the interim order meant that at least until the next hearing, the investigation into the allegations contained in the FIR remained stayed, giving the petitioner temporary protection from investigative actions against him.
The spiritual guru’s plea before the High Court arises out of an FIR registered against him by the Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force Police, alleging offences punishable under Section 192A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The offences listed in the FIR against the petitioner include allegations that if a person unlawfully enters upon or occupies any Government land with the intention of holding that Government land, the person shall be subject to imprisonment for up to one year and a fine. The statutory provision under Section 192A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, prescribes penalties for unlawful entry or occupation of Government land, and the FIR invokes this provision on the basis of alleged encroachment of public lands by the respondents named in the crime. The registration of the crime, as detailed in the petition, traces its origin to an order passed by a Division Bench of the High Court while disposing of a Public Interest Litigation. In that earlier PIL, the Division Bench had observed that the respondents in that PIL had encroached upon public lands to some extent, and that constructions had even been raised on a Rajakaluve, a storm water drain that connects lakes, in certain survey numbers of Kaggalipura Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk.
In the PIL that led to the registration of the crime, the Division Bench had pointed to maps indicating that constructions had been raised in specified survey numbers of the village, and that a significant portion of another survey number, indicated to be a tank, had also been encroached. Based on these observations and in view of the Government’s stance that there had been encroachment of public lands, the Division Bench had disposed of the PIL by directing action to be taken against encroachers as warranted in accordance with law. The PIL’s disposal and the Division Bench’s direction for action set the stage for the subsequent registration of the FIR by the Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force Police. Within the context of that FIR, the petitioner Sri Sri Ravishankar was added as respondent No.5 in the PIL along with other persons, and those persons were also arrayed as accused in the crime registered by the police. The petitioner’s inclusion in the FIR and as a respondent in the PIL provided the basis for his legal challenge to the FIR before the High Court.
In challenging the FIR, the petitioner’s plea seeks the quashing of the FIR registered against him on allegations of unlawful encroachment of public land. The legal challenge focuses on the validity and propriety of the FIR, questioning whether the allegations contained therein can be sustained against the petitioner and whether the investigation should continue. The High Court’s interim stay on investigation and its listing of the matter for further hearing reflect the procedural course of the petition before the Court. The High Court’s decision to hear the matter in the next month provides an opportunity for the Court to consider the substantive and procedural arguments raised by the parties regarding the FIR and the challenge to it.
The continuation of the interim order that stayed the investigation against the petitioner and the Court’s direction that the matter be listed for hearing on February 5 demonstrate the procedural posture of the petition. The Court’s willingness to grant time to cure alleged defects in the petition and to maintain the interim order pending further hearing indicates that the Court is engaging with the matter on its merits and procedural propriety, allowing the petitioner to address deficiencies and to present substantive arguments in due course. The petition’s progression through the High Court reflects the legal processes involved when an individual approaches the Court to quash an FIR, particularly where the allegations involve statutory offences under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and arise from observations made by the High Court itself in an earlier Public Interest Litigation.
The narrative of the petition underscores the interplay between the earlier PIL that led to a Division Bench’s observations on alleged encroachments, the registration of the FIR by the Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force Police, and the petitioner’s challenge to that FIR before the High Court. The petitioner’s challenge includes procedural aspects, such as the propriety of the affidavit supporting the petition, as well as substantive questions regarding the allegations against him. The High Court’s interim order staying the investigation and its subsequent listing of the matter for further hearing provide the procedural context within which the challenge to the FIR will be considered. The continuation of the interim order, and the Court’s direction to list the matter for hearing next month, indicate that the petition will be the subject of a more detailed hearing at a future date, when the parties will have the opportunity to advance their respective arguments before the Court.
The case is captioned as Sri Sri Ravi Shankar versus the State of Karnataka and another, and is registered as Writ Petition No. 143 of 2026. The listing of the matter for hearing on February 5, following the cure of the defect in the affidavit, reflects the High Court’s approach to managing the procedural and substantive aspects of the petition. The Court’s engagement with the matter, including its handling of the interim stay and its decision to allow time to cure procedural defects, demonstrates the judicial consideration given to petitions seeking quashing of FIRs and the legal standards applicable to such challenges.
As the matter stands, the High Court has acknowledged the existence of the petitioner’s challenge to the FIR, has noted the procedural developments, and has set a future date for hearing the petition. The interim stay of the investigation remains operative until that hearing, providing the petitioner with temporary relief from investigative actions. The forthcoming hearing next month will provide the framework for a more detailed judicial consideration of the issues raised in the petition, including the validity of the FIR, the allegations contained therein, and whether the investigation should proceed against the petitioner. The High Court’s management of the petition illustrates the judicial processes involved in hearing challenges to FIRs and highlights the procedural steps taken by the Court in addressing both procedural and substantive aspects of such legal challenges.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.