Karnataka High Court

Sri Kumaraswamy P vs State Of Karnataka on 24 October, 2024

Author: Hemant Chandangoudar

Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar

                                                   -1-
                                                                 NC: 2024:KHC:42843
                                                               WP No. 23951 of 2024




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                              DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

                                                BEFORE
                           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
                              WRIT PETITION NO. 23951 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE)
                      BETWEEN:

                      SRI KUMARASWAMY P
                      AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
                      S/O PUTTEGOWDA,
                      RESIDNG AT BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE,
                      ACHALU POST, SATANURU HOBLI,
                      KANAKAPURA TALUK
                      RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-562 117.
                                                                      ...PETITIONER
                      (BY SRI. SHUBHAM N.M., ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
                            HOME DEPARTMENT,
                            ROOM NO.2, II FLOOR,
                            VIDHANA SOUDHA,
                            BENGALURU-560 001
Digitally signed by         REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
R HEMALATHA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF              2.    DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR
KARNATAKA                   GENERAL OF POLICE
                            KARNATAKA STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS
                            NO. 2, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
                            BENGALURU-560 001.

                      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.
                                  -2-
                                                NC: 2024:KHC:42843
                                            WP No. 23951 of 2024




5.   THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
     SATHANUR POLICE STATION,
     SATHANUR, KARNATAKA-562 126.
                                                 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.P. YOGANNA, AGA)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.01.2012
BEARING REFERENCE NO.S.D.P.O/C.P.T/R.D/01/2012 PASSED
BY THE R4 AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR


                           ORAL ORDER

The name of the petitioner was entered in the rowdies register under Order 1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual, stating that four criminal cases have been registered against the petitioner in Cr.Nos.30/2005, 70/2010, 152/2010 and 144/2020. The petitioner has Annexed a copy of the judgment of the jurisdictional Trial Court wherein the petitioner has been acquitted in all four criminal cases registered against him.

2. Learned HCGP submits that subsequent to the registration of the petitioner's name in the rowdy register, three new cases have been registered against the petitioner which are pending consideration before the Trial Court in C.C.Nos.600/2016, 866/2019 and 388/2019.

NC: 2024:KHC:42843

3. The respondent-Police are required to periodically review the continuation of the name of the petitioner in the rowdy register. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mani Bharathi -vs- State of Karnataka, disposed of on 13.6.2008 observed that, ordinarily if no adverse conduct is noted, for about a year or so, the entry in the Register of Rowdies has to be struck off. Any discretion has to be exercised in accordance with the rules of reason and justice.

4. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of B.S.Prakash and Ors Vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors, 2022(4) KCCR 3648, has issued guidelines for Rowdy/History Sheeting, which read as follows:

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

NC: 2024:KHC:42843

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 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.

NC: 2024:KHC:42843

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.

5. The guidelines issued by the co-ordinate bench of this indicated that 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.

6. In the instant case, the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner on the basis of three criminal cases registered against him and subsequently, the petitioner has been acquitted in all three criminal cases. Thereafter, in the years 2016 and 2019 four new criminal cases have been registered against the

NC: 2024:KHC:42843

petitioner, and the same is pending trial. However, the petitioner's name is entered in the rowdy sheet register on the basis of the three criminal cases of which the petitioner has been acquitted, and therefore, the respondent-Police ought to have undertaken to exercise the periodical review of the entry, and delete the name of the petitioner from the rowdy sheet register. Therefore, the continuation of the name of the petitioner in the rowdy register is arbitrary and discriminatory. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) The petition is allowed.

ii) The impugned order dated 11.01.2012 passed by the respondent No.4 is hereby quashed.

iii) The respondents No.5 is hereby directed to delete the name of the petitioner from the rowdy register within a week from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.