Karnataka High Court
Gungadi Sharanappa Tothappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 November, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15601
WP No. 107074 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 107074 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
GUNGADI SHARANAPPA TOTHAPPA
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
AT: VTC, NELGERI, PO: KUDRIMOTI,
DISTRICT: KOPPAL, PIN CODE: 583 237.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SACHIN C ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY ITS SECRETARY
HOME DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU- 560001.
2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
KOPPAL DISTRICT: KOPPAL
PIN CODE-583 231.
Digitally signed by
RAKESH S
HARIHAR 3. THE BEVOOR POLICE STATION BEVOOR
Location: High TQ: YALABURGA DISTRICT: KOPPAL
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench, PIN CODE-583 237.
Dharwad
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER
OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AND BE PLEASED TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.07.2025, BEARING
NO.12/KO OO VI/2025/820, PASSED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF
POLICE, KOPPAL, THE COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER PRODUCED
HERE WITH ANNEXURE-F, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15601
WP No. 107074 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer:
Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 13.07.2025, bearing no.12/PÉÆÃM«/2025/820, passed by the Superintendent of Police, Koppal, the copy of the Impugned order produced here with Annexure-F, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Sachin C. Angadi, appearing for petitioner and learned AGA-Sri.T.Hanumareddy, appearing for respondent.
3. The petitioner gets embroiled in Crime No.82 of 2025 registered for offences punishable under Sections 352 and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Upon registration of the crime, the name of the petitioner is drawn in the list of rowdies maintained by respondent No.3-Bevoor Police Station.
4. The name of the petitioner is drawn in the list of rowdies under Category-C. The petitioner then submits a -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:15601 WP No. 107074 of 2025 HC-KAR representation for deletion of his name from the list of rowdies on the score that it is the crime registered was for offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 126(2), 308(2), 352 and 190 of the BNS, 2023 and therefore his name ought to be deleted.
5. The Learned AGA would submit that despite the rejection of the representation, the case of the petitioner would be considered on its merits in terms of the law laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of B.S.PRAKASH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS in W.P.No.4504/2021 disposed on 22.04.2022.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in identical cases, this Court following the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held as follows:
3. "The petitioner is said to have got himself embroiled in several crimes for the offences punishable under Sections 110(E) and (G) of the Cr.P.C. and all those cases have been closed on acquittal. In certain other cases for offences punishable under Indian Penal Code as well.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been acquitted of the offences he would seek to place reliance upon the order passed by this Court in an identical circumstances. This Court in W.P. No.28554/2023 disposed on 29th February 2024 had passed the following order:-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15601 WP No. 107074 of 2025 HC-KAR "3. Facts in brief germane, are as follows:
The petitioner gets embroiled in
a crime in Crime No.723/2009 for the
offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 332, 109, 149 r/w. 120B of the IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The police investigates into the matter and files a charge sheet before the concerned Court. Subsequent, to the said crime, another crime comes to be registered in Crime No.244/2012 for the offences under Sections 120B, 143, 147, 148, 341, 427, 323, 324, 332, 307, 302, 506, 114 r/w. 149 of the IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
The third case comes to be registered in Crime No.20/2016 for the offences under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC.
4. The police file a charge sheet against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC. Based upon these crimes registered against the petitioner and the trial being pending, the name of the petitioner is drawn in the list of rowdies maintained before respondent No.4 - Nelamangala Police Station. Challenging drawing up the name of the petitioner in the list of rowdies, the petitioner was before this Court in W.P.No.14560/2022. The co-ordinate bench disposed the petition on 25.08.2022, by directing that all action be taken in terms of the guidelines laid down in W.P.No.4504/2021. The representation was directed to be considered with regard to the specific grievance vented out by the petitioner. Then comes the very same impugned order of rejection of the representation on several grounds. This is what has driven the petitioner before this Court, in the subject petition, yet again.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the President of the Grama Panchayath and due to political rivalry and factors of the kind has lead drawing up the name of the petitioner in the list of rowdies by the police. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in terms of Rule 1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual, 1965, a person's name can be drawn in the list of rowdies in terms of the conditions stipulated therein. Learned counsel would submit that there is gross violation of the order dated 25.08.2022, passed by the co-ordinate bench in W.P.No.14560/2022.
-5-NC: 2025:KHC-D:15601 WP No. 107074 of 2025 HC-KAR
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader would however refute the submissions in defense of the order impugned contending that the petitioner would threaten the witnesses in the criminal case, that is pending trial before the concerned Court and there is life threat to the petitioner himself and therefore, his name is retained in the list of rowdies.
7. If that be the circumstances, projected by the learned High Court Government Pleader as is found in the order, the list can be said about the said findings, it is preposterous. Drawing the name of the petitioner in the list of rowdies on the ground that his life and limb is in threat is unknown to law. Therefore, it is passed without application of mind and without even looking into the guidelines laid down by the co-ordinate bench in the aforesaid writ petition.
8. In that light, though the order refers inter alia other circumstances, the action will have to be taken in accordance with law and in terms of the guidelines laid down by the co- ordinate bench held in the case of B.S.PRAKASH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS in W.P.No.4504/2021 DISPOSED ON 22.04.2022 and so also in the judgment rendered by the co-ordinate bench in W.P.No.14560/2022, disposed on 25.08.2022. The guidelines laid down in W.P.No.4504/2021 read as follows:
"The short grievance of the petitioner is as to non- consideration of his representation dated 01.10.2020 Annexure-J for deleting the name in the Rowdy Register.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner banks upon the decision of this Court in W.P. No.4504/2021 (GM-POL) between B.S.PRAKASH and STATE Of KARNATAKA & OTHERS and other connected matters disposed off on 22.04.2022, wherein the operative portion reads as under:
"In the above circumstances, all these Writ Petitions are disposed off prescribing the following guidelines for supplementing the existing position of law relating to Rowdy Sheeting & History Sheeting:
-6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:15601 WP No. 107074 of 2025 HC-KAR "GUIDELINES FOR ROWDY/HISTORY SHEETING: i. Before entering the name of an individual
to the Register of Rowdies, the jurisdictional police shall collect and collate the material information concerning him and frame the proposal for registration on that basis.
ii. A brief proposal notice shall be sent to the individual concerned in a sealed cover with an option to submit his representation within two weeks as to why his name should not be registered as a rowdy. However, there is no need to afford a personal hearing. In exceptional cases notice may be dispensed with for reasons to be recorded in the Register of Rowdies.
iii. In terms of Clause (5), Order 1059 of the Manual, the Superintendent of Police or the Sub
- Divisional Police Officer shall not accord approval for entering the name of individual concerned to the Register of Rowdies without calling for records and objectively considering the same. He shall briefly record his reasons for according the approval and mark a copy thereof to the individual forthwith, with a mention that he may petition the Police Complaints Authority, against the same.
iv. The jurisdictional Police shall compulsorily once in two years, undertake a periodic review of entries in the Register of Rowdies suo motu, as provided under Clause (2), Order 1057 of the Manual. However, it is open to the aggrieved, to make a representation at any time after one year of registration, seeking deletion of name from the Rowdy Register on the basis of changed circumstances such as rectitude, good conduct, social/community service, etc. v. The representation for review shall be considered by the jurisdictional Police at the initial level within a period of 30 days, during which necessary inputs may be obtained through the available sources as to merits of the claim.
The recommendation shall be sent to the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police or the Sub
- Divisional Police Officer, within 15 days along with the representation & the material collected -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:15601 WP No. 107074 of 2025 HC-KAR thereon. Such recommendation along with the result of consideration of the representation shall be communicated to the individual concerned within next 15 days.
vi. Any individual aggrieved by the rejection of his representation or continuation of his name in the Register may petition to the Police Complaints Authority ordinarily within 30 days. However, no personal hearing shall avail. The petition shall be disposed off by recording reasons within an outer limit of 60 days, after considering the material on record or the fresh inputs that may be requisitioned, by the authority.
vii. The entire process of Rowdy/History Sheeting from the stage of issuance of proposal notice as specified above, up to the issuance of the orders on the petition if any to the Police Complaints Authority, shall be done only in a sealed cover procedure and that nothing therein shall be disclosed nor made available to anyone, except to the aggrieved, nor any Right To Information (RTI) application shall be entertained in this regard.
viii. The violation of these guidelines shall constitute a major misconduct and an adverse entry on proof thereof shall be made by the Disciplinary Authority in the Service Register of the erring official after hearing him and a copy thereof shall be marked to the victim of Rowdy Register/History Sheet, without brooking any delay.
ix. Whatever guidelines herein above laid down shall be applicable to the case of History Sheeters as well, mutatis mutandis and subject to the provisions of Karnataka Police Manual, 1965."
2. In several matters this Court has directed time bound consideration of representations of the kind in the light of the said decision supra and therefore similar relief needs to be given to the petitioner as well in view of Division Bench decision of this Court in W.A. Nos.932- 933/1974 between A.V.VINODA & ANOTHER vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:15601 WP No. 107074 of 2025 HC-KAR COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY disposed off on 11.12.1974, wherein it has held that identical litigants before the Court are entitled to identical Interim reliefs unless there are factors militating against the grant.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds in part; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the 2nd respondent to consider or cause to be considered petitioner's subject representation dated 01.10.2020 as specified in the light of the above decision It hardly needs to be stated that the rowdy sheeting will have consequences upon the rowdy sheeter individually and cannot cast its shadow on the family members of rowdy sheeter. This needs to be borne in mind by the respondent-police.
All contentions are kept open.
Now, no costs."
The guidelines were directed to be followed in the earlier case as well but it is not even looked into while passing the impugned order, in the subject petition. Therefore, the State / competent authority shall pass necessary orders strictly in consonance with the guidelines that is quoted supra as laid down by the co- ordinate bench and not drive the petitioner yet again to this Court on the ground of non-application of mind.
9. For the reasons aforesaid, the following:
ORDER a. The writ petition is allowed.
b. The order dated 27.12.2022, stands quashed.
c. The competent authority shall reconsider the matter afresh and pass necessary orders within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, if not earlier."
5. In that light, the petition deserves an identical order of consideration of the representation of the petitioner dated 20.01.2025 for deletion of his name -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:15601 WP No. 107074 of 2025 HC-KAR strictly in consonance with the observations made in the course of the order quoted herein above. The order shall be complied with within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not earlier.
Ordered accordingly."
7. In the light of the said submission, I deem it appropriate to dispose the subject petition by directing consideration of the representation of the petitioner strictly in consonance with the observations made by the Co-ordinate Bench in the judgment quoted (supra), within three (3) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE RHR CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54