Sri.Abdulrafiq S/O Husensab Mangasule vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 December, 2025

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                                              -1-
                                                         NC: 2025:KHC-D:17539
                                                       WP No. 108526 of 2019


                   HC-KAR




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

                            DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

                                            BEFORE

                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

                        WRIT PETITION NO. 108526 OF 2019 (GM-POLICE)

                   BETWEEN:

                   1.   SRI.ABDULRAFIQ
                        S/O HUSENSAB MANGASULE
                        AGE: 58 YEARS,
                        OCC: SERVICE, NOW NIL,
                        R/O: GOKAK FALLS, GOKAK,
                        TQ: GOKAK,
                        DIST: BELAGAVI-591308.

                   2.   SRI.SHANKAR SHIVARAI BADUGOL
                        AGE: 59 YEARS,
                        OCC: SERVICE, NOW NIL,
                        R/O: GOKAK FALLS, GOKAK,
RAKESH                  TQ: GOKAK,
S                       DIST: BELAGAVI-591308.
HARIHAR                                                         ...PETITIONERS
Digitally signed   (BY SRI. SRINAND A PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE)
by RAKESH S
HARIHAR
Date: 2025.12.09   AND:
11:55:16 +0530

                   1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                        REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
                        DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
                        M.S. BUILDING,
                        AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
                        BENGLAURU-560001

                   2.   THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
                        S.P. OFFICE,
                        BELAGAVI-590001.
                              -2-
                                       NC: 2025:KHC-D:17539
                                     WP No. 108526 of 2019


HC-KAR




3.     THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
       D.S.P. OFFICE,
       GOKAK DIVISION,
       GOKAK,
       DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.

4.     THE CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR
       GOKAK,
       TQ: GOKAK,
       DIST: BELAGAVI-591307.

5.     GOKAK TOWN POLICE STATION
       BY ITS P.S.I., GOKAK,
       DIST: BELAGAVI-591308.

                                             ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA)


        THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE

LIST    OF   ROWDY   SHEET   DATED   29.06.2017   MARKED   AT

ANNEXRUE - D INSOFAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED

AND ETC.



        THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING

B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
                                      -3-
                                                 NC: 2025:KHC-D:17539
                                              WP No. 108526 of 2019


HC-KAR



                                ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

1. Petitioners are before this Court seeking the following

prayer.

"i. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the list of rowdy sheet dated 29.06.2017 marked at annexure - D insofar as petitioners are concerned.

ii. Issue a direction to the respondent No.3 to remove the name of the petitioners from the rowdy sheet,

iii. and grant any other relief as deemed fit in the interest of justice."

2. In a dispute between two trade unions and the

management, the petitioners appear to have been caught in the

cross fire. The cross fire led to registration of a crime against

these petitioners and a charge sheet lay a later.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

the petitioners have been acquitted in the said criminal cases.

Notwithstanding the same, the name of these petitioners do

spring still which sprang on the registration of the crime in the

list of rowdies in the respondent No.5 Police Station the names

still appears.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:17539

HC-KAR

4. In the light of the acquittal of these petitioners, I

deem it appropriate to direct the petitioners to submit a

representation to the respondent No.3 seeking their deletion and

the respondent No.3, who shall consider the representation in

strict consonance with the law laid down by the Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court in B.S. Prakash vs. State of Karnataka

and others in W.P. No.4504 of 2021 disposed of on 22.04.2022.

The guidelines laid down in the said order 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

NC: 2025:KHC-D:17539

HC-KAR

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 the aggrieved, nor any Right To Information (RTI) application shall be entertained in this regard.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:17539

HC-KAR

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. In the light of the said submission, I deem it

appropriate to dispose the subject petition and the petitioner

shall submit a representation within six weeks from the date of

receipt of the copy of the order.

6. In the event such a representation would come

about, the respondent No.3 shall consider the same strictly in

consonance with the observations made by the Co-ordinate

Bench in the judgment quoted (supra), within four months from

the date of receipt of copy of the order.

Sd/-

(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

RSH/ CT: ASC LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 58