Karnataka High Court
Nayeem Khan vs The State on 6 February, 2026
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1105
WP No. 200163 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO.200163 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
NAYEEM KHAN S/O ALAM KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O JALALWADI, KALABURAGI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MD. IDRIS JAGIRDAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE THROUGH
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
B-SUB-DIVISION, KALABURAGI.
2. THE POLICE INSPECTOR
ROZA POLICE STATION, KALABURAGI
(BOTH REP. BY LEARNED ADDL. S.P.P.
Digitally signed by HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
VARSHA N KALABURAGI BENCH-585107).
RASALKAR
Location: HIGH ...RESPONDENTS
COURT OF (BY SRI. JAISHANKAR SHESHADRI, AGA)
KARNATAKA
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ROWDY SHEET BEARING NO.
DzÉñÀ.¸ÀA.02/gËr²Ãl/J¹©(©)/PÀ/2021 DATED 18.04.2021 MAINTAINED AT
ROZA POLICE STATION KALABURAGI, DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO
IMMEDIATELY CLOSE AND DELETE THE PETITIONER'S NAME FROM
ROWDY REGISTER.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1105
WP No. 200163 of 2026
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:
"Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the rowdy sheet bearing no. DzÉñÀ.¸ÀA.02/gËr²Ãl/J¹©(©)/PÀ/2021 dated 18.04.2021 maintained at Roza Police Station kalaburagi, direct the respondent to immediately close and delete the petitioner's name from rowdy register or gran any other reliefs that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit."
2. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a law-abiding citizen. Respondents have illegally and arbitrarily included the name of the petitioner in the Rowdy Sheet Register, maintained at Rosa Police Station, Kalaburagi. It is further contended that petitioner has not been convicted of any offence nor is he involved in any criminal activities, falling within the guidelines of opening a rowdy sheet. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that vide order dated 18.04.2021, the petitioner's name was included in the rowdy sheet bearing No. DzÉñÀ.¸ÀA.02/gËr²Ãl/J¹©(©)/PÀ/2021. It is further contended that petitioner is a well-known person in -3- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1105 WP No. 200163 of 2026 HC-KAR the society, surviving with his wife and children. Due to the inclusion of the name in the rowdy sheet, the respondent-police have been continuously monitoring and conducting surveillance, visiting the house and workplace of the petitioner, thereby causing embarrassment and harassment to him, his family members and defaming his name in the society, which is a violation of his right to privacy, dignity and of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
3. Learned counsel further contends that the respondent authorities have not followed the proper procedure laid down in the Karnataka Police Manual, 1998 and without following the said procedure, they have included the name of the petitioner in the Rowdy Sheet Register, which is illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, he seeks indulgence of this Court to set aside the order dated 18.04.2021 and remove his name from the Rowdy Sheet Register maintained by respondent-police. -4-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1105 WP No. 200163 of 2026 HC-KAR
4. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate sustains the impugned order and contends that the petitioner is detrimental to the interest of the society. He is involved in many criminal offences, based on which his name is registered in the Rowdy Sheet Register, by following due process of law. Hence, the petition does warrant interference.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
6. 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 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 -5- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1105 WP No. 200163 of 2026 HC-KAR 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 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 -6- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1105 WP No. 200163 of 2026 HC-KAR has not been followed and merely because he was involved in a criminal case, he has been framed.
7. 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 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."-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1105 WP No. 200163 of 2026 HC-KAR
8. 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
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 -8- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1105 WP No. 200163 of 2026 HC-KAR '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.
(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 -9- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1105 WP No. 200163 of 2026 HC-KAR 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 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
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1105 WP No. 200163 of 2026 HC-KAR 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.
(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
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1105 WP No. 200163 of 2026 HC-KAR 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.
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."
9. In view of the non-compliance of the procedure contemplated under standing order No.1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual, this Court is of the opinion that
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1105 WP No. 200163 of 2026 HC-KAR the petitioner has made out a valid case to consider favourably. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned order bearing no.
DzÉñÀ.¸ÀA.02/gËr²Ãl/J¹©(©)/PÀ/2021 dated 18.04.2021 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 4 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. 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.
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1105 WP No. 200163 of 2026 HC-KAR Prakash v. State of Karnataka and others reported in 2022 (4) KCCR 3648.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE NJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8 CT:SI