Karnataka High Court
Sri Vijay Kumar vs State Of Karnataka on 9 June, 2022
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.18221 OF 2021 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN
SRI. VIJAY KUMAR
S/O SHANKRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/AT KARDHYAL
BIDAR - 585413
... PETITIONER
[BY MS. GEETA R. SHINDHE, ADV.]
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT
HOME DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560001
2. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
OFFICE OF THE
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
INFANTRY ROAD
BENGALURU - 560001
2
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
SUBRAMANYAPURA SUB-DIVISION
NO.23, 1ST STAGE
KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT
OPPOSITE KUMARSWAMY
POLICE STATION
KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT
BENGALURU - 560078
4. POLICE INSPECTOR
KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT POLICE STATION
1ST STAGE,
KUMARSWAMY LAYOUT
BENGALURU CITY - 560078
... RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI. K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP]
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH
SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 30.08.2019 PASSED BY RESPONDENT
NO.3 VIDE ANNX-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court seeking for writ
in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated
30.08.2019 drawing his name amongst the list of rowdy
sheeters.
2. Heard Ms.Geeta R. Shindhe, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K.S. Abhijith,
learned HCGP for the respondents.
3. The petitioner is an accused in Crime
No.30/2018, registered on 05.02.2018. The Police after
investigation have filed a charge sheet in the said crime,
wherein the allegations against the petitioner according
to the learned counsel is one of being a part of an
unlawful assembly.
4. Contending no allegation that would be
within the Police manual, the petitioner represents
during the pendency of the case for deletion of his name
from the list of rowdy sheeters.
5. The representation is appended to the
petition. An acknowledgment of such delivery is also
found. It is germane to notice the judgment of the
co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.4504/2021
and connected matters rendered on 22.04.2022 laying
down specific guidelines as to how the history sheeting
of a rowdy should be made. The guidelines read as
follows:
"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.57
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 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."
6. Clause Nos.iv and v of the guidelines direct
periodic review of the entries in the register in
accordance with the Clause(2) Order 1057 of the Police
Manual and Clause V directs consideration of a
representation given by such accused whose name is
found in the list.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the representation has been given on 30.03.2021
itself and no order is passed.
8. In terms of the guidelines laid down by the
judgment (Supra) appropriate orders should be passed
on the representation given by the petitioner in
accordance with law and in terms of the Clauses of the
Police manual, within a period of 30 days from the date
of the receipt of the copy of this order.
The Writ petition stands disposed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KG
