Karnataka High Court

Sri. Kumaraswamy. P vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 December, 2023

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                                                 -1-
                                                             NC: 2023:KHC:46596
                                                          WP No. 26722 of 2023




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                             DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

                                               BEFORE
                             THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
                            WRIT PETITION NO. 26722 OF 2023 (GM-POLICE)
                      BETWEEN:

                      SRI. KUMARASWAMY. P,
                      AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
                      S/O. PUTTEGOWDA,
                      RESIDING AT BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE,
                      ACHALU POST, SATANURU HOBLI,
                      KANAKAPURA TALUK,
                      RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 117.
                                                                   ...PETITIONER
                      (BY SRI. SHUBHAM N.M, ADVOCATE FOR
                          SRI. MADHU N. RAO, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally signed by         HOME DEPARTMENT,
PADMAVATHI B K              ROOM NO.2, II FLOOR,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF                    VIDHANA SOUDHA,
KARNATAKA                   BENGALURU - 560 001,
                            REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

                      2.    DIRECTOR-GENERAL AND INSPECTOR
                            GENERAL OF POLICE,
                            KARNATAKA STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS,
                            NO. 2, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
                            BENGALURU - 560 001.
                                 -2-
                                                NC: 2023:KHC:46596
                                              WP No. 26722 of 2023




3.   SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
     POLICE BHAVANA, B.M. ROAD,
     RAMANAGARA - 562 159.

4.   THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
     CHANNAPATNA SUB DIVISION,
     CHANNAPATNA, RAMANAGARA - 562 138.

5.   THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
     SATANURU POLICE STATION,
     SATANURU, KARNATAKA - 562 126.
                                                    ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K, HCGP)

      THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R-4 TO
PROVIDE THE PETITIONER A COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
11.01.2012        ALONG         WITH          THE      DOCUMENTS
RELIED/SUPPORTING THE ORDER DATED 11.01.2012 WITHIN
A REASONABLE TIME THIS HONBLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT.

      THIS    PETITION,     COMING      ON      FOR   PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                              ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following

prayers:

"a) Directing Respondent No.4 to provide the Petitioner a copy of the Order dated 11.01.2012 along with the documents relied/supporting the Order dated 11.01.2012 within a reasonable time this Hon'ble court may deem fit.

      b)     Award cost of the proceedings.

                                                             NC: 2023:KHC:46596





      c)        Grant any other relief/s that this Hon'ble Court
                may deem fit."


      2.        Heard       Sri.     Shubham         N.M.,     learned   counsel

appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Manjunath K., learned

HCGP appearing for the respondent.

3. The petitioner claims to be member of Achalu

Grama Panchayath, Bommanahalli village and has produced

documents to that effect. The petitioner claims to have bought

into light several misappropriation of Government welfare funds

by the Government officials - Deputy Commissioner of

Ramangara District and all others. It is the case of the

petitioner that he has registered a complaint before the

Karnataka Lokayukta, as well with regard to the aforesaid

alleged illegal activities. It transpires that the complainant -

Lokayukta proceeded with the matter and a communication is

made from the Deputy Commissioner to the Lokayuktha. The

communication dated 02.03.2023 reads as follows:

"gÀªÀjUÉ, ªÀiÁ£Àå C¥ÀgÀ ¤§AzsÀPÀgÀÄ, «ZÁgÀuÉUÀ¼ÀÄ-5, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ - 560 001.

ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ,

NC: 2023:KHC:46596

«µÀAiÀÄ: ²æÃ PÀÄªÀiÁgÀ¸Áé«Ä ¦, PÀ£ÀPÀ¥ÀÄgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, PÀ£ÀPÀ¥ÀÄgÀ gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀ zÀÆj£À PÀÄjvÀÄ. G ÉèÃR: 1. vÀªÀÄä PÀbÉÃj ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå: PÀA¥ÉèAmï: ÉÆÃPï/©r-

7422/2022/JDgï-5, ¢£ÁAPÀ:29-11-2022 ºÁUÀÆ ¢£ÁAPÀ:03-01-2023.

2. F PÀbÉÃj »A§gÀºÀ ¸ÀASÉå: gÁfPÀ/JAJf(4)/¹Dgï/ 86/2015-16&257/2022(E-129609)¢£ÁAPÀ:

02-03-2023.

3. ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ f Éè, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ gÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ¸ÀASÉå:105/f.©/f.J ï.¹/2023¢£ÁAPÀ:20-02-

2023.

***** «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ G ÉèÃR(1)gÀ vÀªÀÄä ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è ²æÃ PÀÄªÀiÁgÀ¸Áé«Ä ¦, PÀ£ÀPÀ¥ÀÄgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, PÀ£ÀPÀ¥ÀÄgÀ gÀªÀgÀ ºÉÆ¸À ¦¸ÀÆÛ®Ä/jªÀ Áégï ¥ÀgÀªÁ£ÀV PÉÆÃj ¸À°è¹zÀ CfðUÉ CAzÀgÉ ¸ÀASÉå:gÁfPÀ/JAJf(4)/¹Dgï/86/15-19 ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ PÉÆÃgÀ ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

CzÀgÀAvÉ ¥Àj²Ã°¸À ÁV, ¸ÀzÀj «ZÁgÀªÁV ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ f Éè, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ gÀªÀjAzÀ G ÉèÃR(3)gÀAvÉ ªÀgÀ¢ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ ÁV, ¸ÀzÀj ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ°è CfðzÁgÀgÁzÀ ²æÃ ¦ PÀÄªÀiÁgÀ¸Áé«Ä ©£ï ¥ÀÄmÉÖÃUËqÀ, ¨ÉÆªÀÄä£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄ, CZÀÑ®Ä CAZÉ, ¸ÁvÀ£ÀÆgÀÄ ºÉÆÃ§½, PÀ£ÀPÀ¥ÀÄgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁvÀ£ÀÆgÀÄ oÁuÁ gËr D¸Á«ÄAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, vÀ£Àß PÀÄlÄA§zÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÀ UÁæªÀÄ¸ÀÜgÀ eÉÆvÉ UÀÄA¥ÀÄ PÀnÖPÉÆAqÀÄ UÁæªÀÄzÀ°è DVAzÁUÉÎ zÉÆA©, UÀ®¨sÉ ¸ÀÈ¶Ö¹ ±ÁAw¨sÀAUÀ GAlÄªÀiÁr ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀjUÉ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÉÆqÉzÁl PÉÆ É ¥ÀæAiÀÄvÀß zËdð£Àå £ÀqÉ¹gÀÄvÁgÉ. F §UÉÎ FvÀ£À «gÀÄzÀÝ ¸ÁvÀ£ÀÆgÀÄ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è PÉÆÃµÀÖPÀzÀ°è «ªÀj¹gÀÄªÀAvÉ Qæ«Ä£À ï ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼ÀÄ zÁR ÁVgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ CfðzÁgÀjUÉ ºÉÆ¸ÀzÁV §AzÀÆPÀÄ ¥ÀgÀªÁ£ÀVAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ¨ÁgÀzÉAzÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ."

4. The communication depicts the petitioner's name to

have been drawn in the list of rowdies in the Police Station of

Sathnur jurisdiction and is said to be a miscreant in the said

area and several crimes are registered against him. The

petitioner is seeking the documents that led to the drawl of the

name of the petitioner in the list of the rowdies maintained in

the Police Station. Therefore, the Competent Authority -

NC: 2023:KHC:46596

Deputy Superintendent of Police shall furnish those documents

to the petitioner, within four weeks from today, as is sought for

by the petitioner in his representations dated 30.10.2023 and

07.11.2023. It is the endorsement so issued that they are

confidential documents and cannot be furnished to the

petitioner, as it runs counter to the judgment rendered by the

Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.No.4504/2021 and connected

matters disposed on 22.04.2022 and has laid down certain

guidelines with regard to registration of names as rowdies in

the Rowdy Register. The guidelines laid down 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

NC: 2023:KHC:46596

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 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

NC: 2023:KHC:46596

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."

5. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

I. Writ petition is allowed. II. Mandamus issues to respondent No.4, notwithstanding the endorsement to furnish the documents that has led the name of the petitioner into the list of rowdies in the Sathnur Police Station.