Karnataka High Court

Ravi S/O Veeresh Angadi vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 January, 2025

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                                               -1-
                                                            NC: 2025:KHC-D:324
                                                        WP No. 106887 of 2024




                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                                        DHARWAD BENCH

                            DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

                                            BEFORE
                           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

                          WRIT PETITION NO.106887 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE)

                   BETWEEN:

                   RAVI S/O. VEERESH ANGADI,
                   AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
                   R/O: WARD NO. 1 SHETTAR PETH
                   ILAKL, TQ: HUNGUND,
                   DIST: BAGALKOT - 587 201.
                                                                   ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SRI P. N. HOSAMANE, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                        REP BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
                        M. S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

                   2.   THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
                        BAGALKOT DISTRICT,
                        NAVNAGAR, BAGALKOT.
Digitally signed
by VISHAL
NINGAPPA           3.   POLICE SUB INSPECTOR / STATION HOUSE
PATTIHAL
Location: High          OFFICER, ILKAL POLICE STATION, ILKAL,
Court of
Karnataka               TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT - 587 201.

                   4.   CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR,
                        HUNGUND POLICE STATION, HUNGUND
                        TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT - 587 201.
                                                                 ...RESPONDENTS
                   (BY SRI SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA)

                         THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
                   OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE WRIT IN THE
                   NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY ORDER OR DIRECTION TO
                   RESPONDENTS QUASHING OPENING/CONTINUING OF ROWDY
                   SHEET AS PER ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED
                   13-6-2017 IN NO. A.S.P/ROW.SHI/1744/2017 AS PER ANNEXURE-E.
                                 -2-
                                              NC: 2025:KHC-D:324
                                        WP No. 106887 of 2024




ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING
RESPONDENT NO.2 TO REMOVE THE NAME OF PETITIONER HEREIN
FROM THE ROWDY LIST BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION AS
PER ANNEXURE-J DATED 25-12-2023 AND ANNEXURE-K DATED
26.8.2024 AND ETC.,

     THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDRE WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:


                           ORAL ORDER

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

1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in

question the name of the petitioner being drawn in the list

of rowdies before the 4th respondent-Hungund Police

Station.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned AGA for respondent-State.

3. It transpires that the petitioner gets embroiled

in 3 crimes, one in Crime No.174/2016, Crime

No.175/2016 and Crime No.14/2017. It is the averment in

the petition that on 03.02.2024 and 07.02.2024, the

petitioner gets acquitted in Special Case No.6/2017 &

Special Case No.117/2017. The petitioner after the said

acquittal submits representation to the competent

authority, seeking removal of his name from the list of

NC: 2025:KHC-D:324

rowdies maintained before the 4th respondent-Police

Station. The representation having gone unheeded, the

petitioner is at the doors of this Court.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submits that the petitioner's name is drawn in the list of

rowdies erroneously notwithstanding the fact that the

petitioner has been acquitted in 2 of the cases and in the

other crime, no witnesses are coming forward to tender

evidence. Therefore the representation ought to have met

its consideration is what the learned counsel would submit.

5. The learned AGA on the other hand would

defend the action of the drawal of the name of the

petitioner in the list of rowdies of the 4th respondent-Police

Station, on the ground that the petitioner has incurred

such drawal due to his involvement in the aforesaid

crimes.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the

arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for

the parties and perused the material on record.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:324

7. The aforesaid narrated facts of drawing of name

of the petitioner into the list of rowdy, is a matter of

record. The reason for such drawal is the involvement of

the petitioner in 3 crimes, 2 of which, he stands acquitted

today. After such acquittal, submits a representation for

removal of his name from the list of rowdies. The same is

yet to be considered. It is apposite to refer to the

judgment of the Coordinate Bench in the case of B S

Prakash Vs. the State of Karnataka,

W.P.No.4504/2021, which is disposed on 22.04.2022,

wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Court has laid down

the following guidelines for drawal and removal of the

name of citizens in the list of rowdies:

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

NC: 2025:KHC-D:324

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

NC: 2025:KHC-D:324

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

NC: 2025:KHC-D:324

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.

8. In the light of the issue already answered by

the Coordinate Bench, the representation of the petitioner

should have met its consideration in terms of the law as

laid down by the Coordinate Bench.

9. In that light, I deem it appropriate to dispose

the petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to

consider the representation of the petitioner bearing in

mind the observations made in the course of the order

NC: 2025:KHC-D:324

with regard to the judgment rendered by the Coordinate

Bench in B S Prakash (supra) and pass necessary orders

in accordance with law. As a matter of form, the order