On Tuesday (3rd March), the Karnataka High Court reserved its order on a petition filed by spiritual leader Sri Sri Ravi Shankar in which he sought the quashing of an FIR registered against him for allegedly encroaching on public land.
“Order is reserved, interim order subsisting would continue till disposal of the petition,” Justice M Nagaprasanna said.
In January this year, a single-judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna ordered the stay on a plea filed by Sri Sri Ravi Shankar seeking the quashing of the FIR against him. In the interim order, Justice Nagaprasanna observed that, prima facie, there appeared to be nothing on record to implicate the spiritual Guru.
“A perusal of the complaint would prima facie indicate no allegations against this petitioner (Ravi Shankar). Without any allegations, the petitioner cannot be drawn into the web of crime, unless the learned Special Public Prosecutor would place on record something to indicate that the petitioner is directly involved in certain acts, on the next date of hearing. Therefore, the investigation qua the petitioner shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing,” Justice Nagaprasanna noted in the order. The stay on the investigation will be effective till the next hearing of the case on 21st January.
The FIR against Sri Sri Ravi Shankar was filed by the Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force, alleging an offence punishable under Section 192A of the (Offences and Penalties) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The FIR arose from a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed in 2023 by Chandra Sekaran N and some others. The PIL sought the demolition of some structures, which were alleged to have been erected by encroaching on government land in Kaggalipura village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. In September last year, the court disposed of the PIL and directed the State to take action against the encroachers as per the law.
Sri Sri Ravi Shankar denied owning any land in the area and said that he was maliciously implicated in the case. He apprised the court that in a memo by the State counsel in the PIL, his name did not feature in the list of alleged encroachers. He further submitted that he was also not mentioned in related proceedings initiated by a Land Grabbing Court in 2024.
