Karnataka High Court
Ramesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 February, 2026
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1563
WP No. 200125 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO.200125 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
RAMESH S/O BHEEMSINGH CHAVAN,
AGE: 37 YEARS,
OCC: PRIVATE WORK AND SOCIAL WORKER,
R/O KERUR TANDA,
TQ. AND DIST. KALABURAGI-585213.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVI BHEEMSINGH CHAWAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
Digitally signed VIDHANA SOUDHA,
by VARSHA N
RASALKAR BENGALURU-560001.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
KARNATAKA KALABURAGI CITY-585105.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
KALABURAGI CITY-585105.
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
KALABURAGI CITY-585105.
5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
SUB-URBAN POLICE STATION,
KALABURAGI DISTRICT-585101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, AGA)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1563
WP No. 200125 of 2026
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, R/W SECTION 528 OF BNSS,
2023, (SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C.) PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT
OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER
OR QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OPENING THE ROWDY
SHEET BEARING NO. DzÉñÀ¸A À :17/gËr²Ãmï/J.¹.¦.(¹)PÀ/2021 ¢£ÁAPÀ
10.09.2021, PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 VIDE ANNEXURE-
A, AS BEING ARBITRARY ILLEGAL, AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE
14 AND 21 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA B) CONSEQUENTLY,
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO FORTHWITH
REMOVE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER FROM THE ROWDY
SHEET/ ROWDY REGISTER AND ALL CONNECTED RECORDS
MAINTAINED PURSUANT THERETO.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondents.
3. Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order bearing DzÉñÀ ¸ÀA:17/gËr²Ãmï/J.¹.¦.(¹)PÀ/2021 dated 10.09.2021 passed by respondent No.4 wherein the respondent authorities have opened a rowdy sheet in the name of petitioner which according to the petitioner affects his -3- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1563 WP No. 200125 of 2026 HC-KAR reputation, liberty and fundamental rights. He contends that the opening of the rowdy sheet and including the name of the petitioner in the register of rowdy sheets is arbitrary, illegal and violates the fundamental rights granted to the petitioner under the Constitution of India. It is contended that petitioner is a law abiding citizen. He has completed his education in Bachelor of Arts and permanent resident of Kalaburagi district. He has participated and contested in the MP election for Lok Sabha elections and a false case has been registered in Crime No.132 of 2020 at Rural Police Station, Kalaburagi for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 354, 427, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. The petitioner has filed an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. for discharge and the same was allowed by the Trial Court and the petitioner was discharged. Two other cases were registered against the petitioner in Crime No.129/2021, in which case also petitioner has filed an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. for discharge and the same is -4- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1563 WP No. 200125 of 2026 HC-KAR pending adjudication. One more case in Crime No.156/2025 at the University Police Station, Kalaburagi is registered against the petitioner which is also pending adjudication. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that opening of the Rowdy Sheet and including the name in the register of Rowdy Sheet by the respondent authorities is illegal, arbitrary and violative of the constitutional provisions and the Karnataka Police Manual, more specifically Standing Order No.1059, as the respondent authorities have not followed the due process and procedure of law, and have not assigned any valid reason for including the name of the petitioner in the register of rowdy sheet. Unless the name of the petitioner is included in the rowdy sheet by following due process and procedure, the same is unsustainable. Hence, he seeks to allow this petition.
4. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the respondent-State sustains the impugned order contending that the petitioner is involved -5- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1563 WP No. 200125 of 2026 HC-KAR in three criminal cases. No doubt, in one case he was discharged, but in other two cases the proceedings are yet to be completed. The procedures are followed in accordance to law under the Karnataka Police Manual. Hence, he seeks dismissal of the petition.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate.
6. The point for consideration is whether the respondent authorities have followed the procedure contemplated under Standing Order No.1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual and the procedure to be followed while including the name of petitioner in the rowdy sheet.
7. It is a fundamental rule of law that when a person is implicated as a rowdy sheeter by including his name in the list of rowdy sheet, the onus is upon the State to follow the due procedure contemplated under the relevant rules and regulations. In the present case, the Karnataka Police Manual, more specifically, the Register of -6- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1563 WP No. 200125 of 2026 HC-KAR Rowdies maintained in order No.1059, which deals with history sheets and rowdy sheets and enrollment or registration of persons in the said sheet for register for continuous monitoring by the police authorities, is not followed. Standing Order No.1059 deals with registration of rowdies. The definition provided is that a rowdy may be defined as a gunda and includes a hooligan, tough, vagabond or any person who is dangerous to public peace and tranquility. There are many forms of rowdism, which are described therein and the process and procedure contemplated to be maintained in different parts, namely Part A, Part B and Part C, which govern the maintenance of a register and the names of the rowdies in their respective parts. It is the duty and obligation cast upon the respondents, which is not optional to follow the due procedure contemplated under the standing orders of the Karnataka Police Manual, while entering the name of a person in the rowdy sheet and there are certain procedures to be mandatorily followed before entering the -7- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1563 WP No. 200125 of 2026 HC-KAR names. As contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, the process and procedure as contemplated under the standing Order No.1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual has not been followed and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to file his reply or explanation for removing his name in the Rowdy Sheet Register and merely, because he was involved in criminal cases, in one of the cases, petitioner was acquitted in the year 2025.
8. It would be relevant to extract paragraph No.17 of the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of K. M. Muniswamy Reddy v. State of Karnataka reported in ILR 1992 KAR 2543, wherein the Division Bench dealt with similar subject matter, which reads as under:
"17. There can be no doubt that if any of the Fundamental Right is to be affected by the State action, it has to be authorised by law, in the sense of a law enacted by the Legislature or to be authorised by a subordinate/delegated legislation, like Rules and Regulations. However, if no Fundamental Right is adversely affected by the enforcement of Order No.1059, State is entitled to act upon it, even in -8- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1563 WP No. 200125 of 2026 HC-KAR case, the said order has no statutory source. On facts, we found that, a reading of Order No.1059 nowhere suggests vesting of an intruding power in the Police Department. enabling the latter to invade any of the Fundamental Rights of the rowdy-sheeted person. The maintenance of rowdy sheet in respect of a suspected person having tendency to commit criminal offence or disturb public peace, is to enable the police to speedy action in cases of breach of public peace; it provides the information of the persons to be watched by the law enforcing agency of the State and nothing more."
[
9. Standing Order No.1059 of Karnataka Police Manual, 1998 is extracted below:
"1059. (1) A rowdy may be defined as a goonda and includes a hooligan, rough, vagabond or any person who is dangerous to the Public peace and tranquility.
(2) The main forms of rowdyism are:-
a) Passing indecent remarks at women and School and College Girls;
b) Intimidation of Law abiding people by acts of violence or by show of force or by abusive language:
c) Forcible collection of subscription;
d) Taking sides in petty quarrels between land-
lords and tenants or between co-tenants and threatening people of the opposite party;
e) Disorderly conduct;
f) Rioting; and -9- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1563 WP No. 200125 of 2026 HC-KAR
g) Snatching and committing robbery (3) In every Police Station, a 'Register of Rowdies' should be maintained in Form No.100 in three parts viz., Part A, Part B and Part C which should be in separate Volumes. All the volumes are to be treated as confidential records.
(4) (a) Names and particulars of 'Confirmed Rowdies' who are residents in the Police Station concerned should be entered in the Register Part A, a few pages being allotted for each person.
(b) Names and particulars of 'Confirmed Rowdies' who are not residents in the Police Station limits but operate within its jurisdiction and names of 'Homeless Confirmed Rowdies' should be entered in Part B, a few pages being allotted for every person.
(c) Names and particulars of "Novices" who are budding goondas should be entered in Part C. They may be either residents or non-residents of the Police Station concerned.
(5) Prior Orders of the Superintendent of Police or the Sub-Divisional Police Officer should be obtained for entering the name of every rowdy in the Register of Rowdies (6) Names of persons against whom there are ample instances of rowdyism should be entered in the Register Part A or Part B after the records are checked by the Inspector.
(7) When there are one or more instances of rowdyism against any person or if he has a very bad reputation in the locality as a bully, his name entered in Part 'C' on the ground of very bad reputation, a through enquiry should be made by the Officer in charge of the Police Station before the entry is made.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1563 WP No. 200125 of 2026 HC-KAR (8) in the running history, all the Criminal activities of the rowdy including reasonable suspicion of his complicity in cases and/or complaints against him with case numbers, if any, and results of cases, etc., should be mentioned in separate paragraphs which should be numbered chronologically. Against each entry in the running history, there should be reference to Station House Diary entries, case diaries, source reports, mass petitions, petty cases, etc., as the case may be.
(9) Officers incharge of Police Stations should, in the course of their daily scrutiny of the entries in the Station House Diary and the petty cases Register, satisfy themselves that relevant notes therefrom have been made and embodied in the 'Rowdy Register' against the rowdies concerned. Before despatching the copy of the Station House Diary to the Circle Inspector/SDPO, a note of having embodied the information in the rowdy register against the relevant entries, should be made. (10) Supervisory officers, during their inspections of Police Stations, should satisfy themselves that the entries have been properly made.
(11) When the activities of a non-resident rowdy comes to notice, the Officer in charge of the Police Station concerned should not only make necessary entries in Part 'B' of the Rowdy Register but also promptly transmit information to the Officer in charge of the Police Station in the limits of which the rowdy resides, to enable the latter to make necessary entries in Part 'A' of the Rowdy Register of his Police Station.
(12) When the Part 'C' rowdies indulge frequently in rowdy and anti-social acts, their names should be transferred from Part 'C' or 'B', as the case may be, of the Rowdy Register. When there is no entry against a Part 'C' rowdy during the period of one year from the date of entry of his name in the
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1563 WP No. 200125 of 2026 HC-KAR Register, his name may be struck off from the Register by the Officer in charge of the Police Station concerned in consultation with the Circle Inspector. (13) No name should be struck off from Part 'A' or Part 'B' of the Rowdy Register without the order in writing of the Superintendent of Police. In such cases, the Inspectors should send their recommendations to Superintendent of Police through the Sub-Divisional Police Officers. (14) The Inspectors should maintain in their offices, the entire lists of the names of rowdies with their addresses which are on record in the Rowdy Register of the Police Station under their charge. The lists should be maintained Police Station-wise and maintained separately for each type of rowdies. The Inspectors should once in a quarter, check up their own lists with the Rowdy Registers of the Police Stations under them.
(15) Under the existing laws, a rowdy can be dealt with in the following ways:
(i) Prosecution in specific cases, like robbery, rioting, grievous hurt, etc.,
(ii) Prosecution in appropriate cases for obscene acts and songs under Section 294 L.P.C. (This is a cognizable offence);
(iii) Prosecution for riotous and indecent behaviour, drunkenness, etc., under Sections 92 (o), (p), (q) and (r) of the Karnataka Police Act 1963, in the areas to which the provisions of that Section have been extended:
(iv) Action under Section 108 (b) of the code of Criminal Procedure;
(v) Action under Section 107 Cr. P.C.
(vi) Action under Section 110 Cr. P.C.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1563 WP No. 200125 of 2026 HC-KAR
(vii) Action under the preventive detention laws;
viii) Externment proceedings under Section 55 and 56 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963; and
(ix) Action under Section 509 I.P.C. for eve- teasing:
(16) Every information that any particular Tea Stall, Restaurant, Eating House or Bar is the resort of rowdies and other types of anti-social elements, when received should promptly be verified and if found correct, the office-in-charge of the Police Station should suitably warn the proprietor/keeper of the Tea-Stall, Restaurant, etc..
(17) With a view to facilitating identification of the rowdies by face, the Officer in charge of the Police Station should, during the roll call, show to the Station Staff recent photographs of the rowdies. He should instruct them to watch their movements and collect information about their activities.
(18) List of persons bound down under Section 106 or under Section 117 of the code of criminal procedure should be maintained in the Police Station with the names and address of the sureties in the following columns:-
1) Sl. No.
2) Name and address of the complainant
3) Gist of the complaint with date and place of occurrence.
4) Names and addresses of persons with aliases bound down.
5) Period for which bound down.
6) Order of the Magistrate with date.
7) Names and address of the sureties.
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1563 WP No. 200125 of 2026 HC-KAR
8) Remarks.
(19) If during the period a person is bound over, there are complaints against him, an immediate enquiry should be made and if the complaints are found to be true, the court should be moved for taking action against the person and the sureties."
10. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri B. S. Prakash v. State of Karnataka and others reported in 2022 (4) KCCR 3648 has laid down guidelines, which are to be followed while registering the name of a person in the Rowdy Sheet Register, which even prior to the said judgment was a mandate for the respondents to have followed strictly in accordance to the Standing Order No.1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual, which in my opinion, considering the facts and circumstance of the present case, has not been followed and even after the acquittal of the petitioner in one case, no action is taken by the respondents in removing his name.
11. In view of non-compliance of the procedure contemplated under standing order No.1059 of the
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1563 WP No. 200125 of 2026 HC-KAR Karnataka Police Manual, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has made out a valid case to consider favourably.
12. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned order of opening Rowdy Sheet in the name of the petitioner bearing DzÉñÀ ¸ÀA:17/gËr²Ãmï /J.¹.¦.(¹)PÀ / 2021 dated 10.09.2021 vide Annexure-A passed by respondent No.4, is hereby quashed.
iii. The respondents are hereby directed to remove the name of the petitioner from the Rowdy Sheet Register maintained by them, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1563 WP No. 200125 of 2026 HC-KAR iv. Liberty, however, is reserved to the respondent/State to proceed in accordance with law against the petitioner, if at all any case is made out and while doing so, they shall strictly follow the guidelines laid down by this Court in the case of Sri B. S. Prakash v. State of Karnataka and others reported in 2022 (4) KCCR 3648.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE VNR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11 Ct:si