The High Court of Karnataka on Friday directed the trial court in Chitradurga to defer till July 1 the trial against Shivamurthy Murugha Sharanaru, head of Jagadguru Murugharajendra Brihan Mutt, Chitradurga, in the criminal case for sexually assaulting minor girls.
However, the High Court clarified that it had not stayed the trial but only asked the trial court to defer further proceedings against the petitioner till it examined the legality of inclusion of certain charges against the accused-seer in the charge sheet along with provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the interim order on a petition filed by the seer challenging the legality of the charge sheet filed against him.
Senior advocate C.V. Nagesh, appearing for the seer, pointed out that the trial court was continuing proceedings against the mutt head even under the provisions of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988.
‘Abuse of process of law’
Mr. Nagesh said that continuing proceedings under the provisions under the 1988 Act was “abuse of process of law” as the High Court, in its May 22 judgment, held that the 1988 Act was not applicable to the case against the seer.
The High Court had also set aside the December 15, 2022, order passed under Section 8(2) of the 1988 Act by the trial court restraining the seer from discharging the duties of the mutt and its educational institutions till the conclusion of trial, he pointed out.
When Act was enacted
The High Court had clearly held that the 1988 Act was not applicable as this law was enacted during height of terrorism and misuse of the Golden Temple in Amritsar by anti-social elements, to prevent misuse of religious institutions for acts like terrorism and other nefarious activities, argued Mr. Nagesh.
After hearing the preliminary arguments of Mr. Nagesh, the High Court said that it had to examine legality of inclusion of charges under the 1988 Act, provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), and Section 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender) of the Indian Penal Code.
The High Court adjourned further hearing till June 21 as the State public prosecutor sought time to file objections to the petition.
