Sri Aslam Wate S/O Bashalal vs The State Of Karnataka
2024 Latest Caselaw 14997 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri Aslam Wate S/O Bashalal vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 June, 2024

                                              -1-
                                                    NC: 2024:KHC-D:8841
                                                      WP No. 103616 of 2024




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
                            DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
                                           BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
                        WRIT PETITION NO. 103616 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE)
                 BETWEEN:
                 1.   SRI ASLAM WATE S/O. BASHALAL,
                      AGED 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                      R/O. KUDUCHI, TAL: RAIBAG.

                 2.   SRI SADDAM ALTAF GUNDWADE
                      S/O. ALTAF GUNDAWADE,
                      AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                      R/O. 9/1, MAIN ROAD, VIKRAM NAGAR,
                      KARVIR, KOLHAPUR, MAHARASHTRA STATE.

                 3.   SRI SALIM MAHAMADGOUS VATE,
                      AGED 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                      R/O. VIKRAM NAGAR, KARVIR,
                      GUR MARKET YARD KOLHAPUR,
                      MAHARASHTRA STATE.
                                                               ...PETITIONERS
                 (BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA A. MALI, ADVOCATE)
                 AND:

ASHPAK
                 1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
KASHIMSA
MALAGALADINNI
                      REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
                      HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHAN SOUDHA,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
                      BENGALURU-01.
KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD
BENCH
                 2.   THE SUPERINDENT OF POLICE,
                      BELAGAVI DISTRICT, BELAGAVI-590001.

                 3.   THE POLICE INSPECTOR,
                      KUDACHI POLICE STATION,
                      KUDACHI, TQ: RAIBAG-590001.

                 4.   THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR,
                      KUDACHI POLICE STATION,
                      KUDACHI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
                                                               ...RESPONDENTS
                 (BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP)
                                  -2-
                                         NC: 2024:KHC-D:8841
                                           WP No. 103616 of 2024




      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RELEVANT
RECORDS AND ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT
OR ORDER IN THE LIKE NATURE QUASHING THE IMPUGNED
NOTICES DATED 16-6-2024 ISSUED IN NO.JA NA 626/2024, JA NA
628/2024 AND JA NA 627/2024 ALL ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT HEREIN PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-D TO
D2 RESPECTIVELY AS THE SAME BEING ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND
NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW IN THE INTEREST OF THE JUSTICE.

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

                               ORDER

The captioned petition is filed by the petitioners assailing

the impugned notices issued by respondent No.4 as to why

petitioner's name should not be included in rowdy sheet and

explanation is sought to be submitted within a period of two

weeks. These notices are under challenge.

2. Heard the counsel for petitioners and learned HCGP.

Perused the records.

3. These impugned notices are clearly found to be

contrary to the guidelines laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench

of this Court in reported judgment rendered in

W.P.No.4504/2021 and connected matters disposed on

22.04.2022. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while

disposing of the case stated supra has laid guidelines as to how

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8841

the name of any person should be drawn into the list of

rowdies. The guidelines reads 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.

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

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8841

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.

4. If the impugned notices are examined in the light of

the guidelines laid down by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court,

this Court is of the view that these impugned notices clearly

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8841

contravene the guidelines and therefore, they suffer from non-

compliance of the aforesaid directions. On perusal of the

notices, this Court would clearly find that there is conflicting

narration found in the notices and the crime registered against

the petitioners and several other persons for the offences

punishable under Sections 323, 143, 147, 148, 307, 504, 506

r/w 149 of IPC in Crime No.47/2024 of Kudachi Police Station.

These notices prima- facie are found to be in cyclostyle. The

reasons assigned in the notices and the allegations made in the

complaint, which led for registration of case in Crime

No.47/2024 being distinct and different, gives an indication to

this Court that the notices are not issued bearing in mind the

directions issued by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

W.P.4504/2021 and connected matters. Reserving liberty to the

respondents to issue notice bearing in mind the observations

made by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment

cited supra, if a situation warrants, this Court passes the

following:

ORDER

i) The writ petition is allowed.

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8841

ii) The impugned notices dated 16.06.2024, issued by respondent No.4 vide Annexures D to D2 are hereby quashed.

iii) Liberty is reserved to respondent No.4 to issue proper notice if needed in future.

iv) In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE AM