Karnataka High Court
Jagadeesh G M S/O G M Pampaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 February, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2579
WP No. 100886 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 100886 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
JAGADEESH G. M. S/O. G. M. PAMPAIAH,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: PRINCIPAL,
R/O: NALANDA COACHING INSTITUTE
WARD NO. 3, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR,
NEAR HALASWAMY TEMPLE, OLD HAGARI
BOMMANAHALLI, TQ: HAGARI BOMMANAHALLI,
DIST: VIJAYANAGAR- 583212.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S. B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME, M. S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE- 560001.
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT- 583201,
Digitally signed by
VISHAL NINGAPPA TQ. AND DIST: VIJAYANAGAR.
PATTIHAL
Location: High
Court of Karnataka, 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad KODLIGI DIVISION KODLIGI,
TALUK. KODLIGI- 583135, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR.
4. THE POLICE SUB INSPECTOR,
HAGARI BOMMANAHALLI POLICE STATION,
TALUK. HAGARI BOMMANAHALLI- 583212,
DIST: VIJAYANAGAR.
5. TAHASHILDAR, HAGARI BOMMANAHALLI,
TAL: HAGARI BOMMANAHALLI,
DIST: VIJAYANAGAR- 583212.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2579
WP No. 100886 of 2025
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS PRAYING TO, ISSUE WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF ISSUE OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENTS TO
CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20-01-2025 AS PER
ANNEXURE-K AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT-2 TO DELETE OR
REMOVE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER FROM THE ROWDY SHEETER
LIST MAINTAINED BY THE HAGARI BOMMANAHALLI POLICE STATION.
ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR RELIEF WHICH THE HON'BLE COURT
THINKS FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the
following prayer:
I. Issue writ in the nature of issue of mandamus to
the respondents to consider the representation
dated 20-01-2025 as per Annexure-K and direct
the respondent-2 to delete or remove the name of
the petitioner from the rowdy Sheeter list
maintained by the Hagari Bommanahalli police
station.
II. Any other writ, order or relief which the Hon'ble
Court thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of
the case in the interest of justice.
2. Heard the learned counsel Shri S.B. Patil
appearing for the petitioner and the learned AGA
Shri Sharad V.Magadum appearing for the respondents.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2579
3. The petitioner is said to have got himself
embroiled in several crimes for the offences punishable
under Sections 110(E) and (G) of the Cr.P.C. and all those
cases have been closed on acquittal. In certain other cases
for offences punishable under Indian Penal Code as well.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has been acquitted of the offences he would
seek to place reliance upon the order passed by this Court
in an identical circumstances. This Court in W.P.
No.28554/2023 disposed on 29th February 2024 had passed
the following order:
"3. Facts in brief germane, are as follows:
The petitioner gets embroiled in a
crime in Crime No.723/2009 for the offences under
Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 332, 109, 149 r/w. 120B of
the IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The
police investigates into the matter and files a charge sheet
before the concerned Court. Subsequent, to the said
crime, another crime comes to be registered in Crime
No.244/2012 for the offences under Sections 120B, 143, 147,
148, 341, 427, 323, 324, 332, 307, 302, 506, 114 r/w.
149 of the IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
The third case comes to be registered in Crime No.20/2016
for the offences under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC.
4. The police file a charge sheet against the
petitioner for the offences under Sections 399 and 402 of
the IPC. Based upon these crimes registered against the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2579
petitioner and the trial being pending, the name of the
petitioner is drawn in the list of rowdies maintained before
respondent No.4 - Nelamangala Police Station. Challenging
drawing up the name of the petitioner in the list of rowdies,
the petitioner was before this Court in W.P.No.14560/2022.
The co-ordinate bench disposed the petition on 25.08.2022,
by directing that all action be taken in terms of the guidelines
laid down in W.P.No.4504/2021. The representation was
directed to be considered with regard to the specific
grievance vented out by the petitioner. Then comes the
very same impugned order of rejection of the
representation on several grounds. This is what has driven
the petitioner before this Court, in the subject petition, yet
again.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is the President of the Grama Panchayath and
due to political rivalry and factors of the kind has lead drawing
up the name of the petitioner in the list of rowdies by the
police. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
in terms of Rule 1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual, 1965,
a person's name can be drawn in the list of rowdies in terms
of the conditions stipulated therein. Learned counsel would
submit that there is gross violation of the order dated
25.08.2022, passed by the co-ordinate bench in
W.P.No.14560/2022.
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader would
however refute the submissions in defense of the order
impugned contending that the petitioner would threaten the
witnesses in the criminal case, that is pending trial before the
concerned Court and there is life threat to the petitioner
himself and therefore, his name is retained in the list of
rowdies.
7. If that be the circumstances, projected by the
learned High Court Government Pleader as is found in the
order, the list can be said about the said findings, it is
preposterous. Drawing the name of the petitioner in the list of
rowdies on the ground that his life and limb is in threat is
unknown to law. Therefore, it is passed without application
of mind and without even looking into the guidelines laid
down by the co-ordinate bench in the aforesaid writ petition.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2579
8. In that light, though the order refers inter alia
other circumstances, the action will have to be taken in
accordance with law and in terms of the guidelines laid down
by the co- ordinate bench held in the case of
B.S.PRAKASH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND
OTHERS in W.P.No.4504/2021 DISPOSED ON
22.04.2022 and so also in the judgment rendered by the co-
ordinate bench in W.P.No.14560/2022, disposed on
25.08.2022. The guidelines laid down in W.P.No.4504/2021
read as follows:
"The short grievance of the petitioner is as
to non- consideration of his representation dated
01.10.2020 Annexure-J for deleting the name
in the Rowdy Register.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
banks upon the decision of this Court in W.P.
No.4504/2021 (GM-POL) between B.S.PRAKASH
and STATE Of KARNATAKA & OTHERS and other
connected matters disposed off on 22.04.2022,
wherein the operative portion reads as under:
"In the above circumstances, all these Writ
Petitions are disposed off prescribing the
following guidelines for supplementing the
existing position of law relating to Rowdy
Sheeting & History Sheeting:
"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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2579
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 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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2579
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."
2. In several matters this Court has directed
time bound consideration of representations of the
kind in the light of the said decision supra and
therefore similar relief needs to be given to the
petitioner as well in view of Division Bench decision
of this Court in W.A. Nos.932- 933/1974 between
A.V.VINODA & ANOTHER vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY
disposed off on 11.12.1974, wherein it has held that
identical litigants before the Court are entitled to
identical Interim reliefs unless there are factors
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2579
militating against the grant.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition
succeeds in part; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the
2nd respondent to consider or cause to be
considered petitioner's subject representation dated
01.10.2020 as specified in the light of the above
decision
It hardly needs to be stated that the rowdy
sheeting will have consequences upon the rowdy
sheeter individually and cannot cast its shadow on
the family members of rowdy sheeter. This needs
to be borne in mind by the respondent-police.
All contentions are kept open.
Now, no costs."
The guidelines were directed to be followed in the earlier
case as well but it is not even looked into while passing
the impugned order, in the subject petition. Therefore, the
State / competent authority shall pass necessary orders
strictly in consonance with the guidelines that is quoted
supra as laid down by the co-ordinate bench and not drive
the petitioner yet again to this Court on the ground of non-
application of mind.
9. For the reasons aforesaid, the following:
ORDER
a. The writ petition is allowed.
b. The order dated 27.12.2022, stands
quashed.
c. The competent authority shall
reconsider the matter afresh and
pass necessary orders within three
weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of the order, if not earlier."
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2579
5. In that light, the petition deserves an identical
order of consideration of the representation of the petitioner
dated 20.01.2025 for deletion of his name strictly in
consonance with the observations made in the course of the
order quoted herein above. The order shall be complied
with within three months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order, if not earlier.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
VNP / CT: ASC
