Karnataka High Court

Sri. K. Rangaswamy S/O Late K Bhimappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 October, 2025

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                                                          -1-
                                                                       NC: 2025:KHC-D:14054
                                                                  WP No. 105676 of 2025


                             HC-KAR


                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
                                      DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
                                                        BEFORE
                                      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
                                   WRIT PETITION NO. 105676 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)
                            BETWEEN:

                            SRI. K. RANGASWAMY S/O. LATE K. BHIMAPPA,
                            AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                            R/O: KUDUREDUVU VILLAGE - 583 135,
                            TQ: KUDLIGI, DIST: VIJAYNAGAR.
                                                                                ...PETITIONER
                            (BY SRI. SRINAND A. PACHAPURE, ADVOCATE)

                            AND:

                            1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                                 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
                                 DEPARTMENT OF HOME, M.S.BUILDING,
                                 AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

                            2.   THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
                                 OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
                                 BALLARI, DIST: BALLARI - 583 101.

                            3.   THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
                                 D.S.P. OFFICE, KUDLIGI DIVISION,
                                 KUDLIGI, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR - 583 135.
RAKESH S
HARIHAR
Digitally signed by
RAKESH S HARIHAR
Location: High Court of
Karnataka Dharwad Bench
Date: 2025.10.18 12:17:04
+0530
                            4.   THE CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR,
                                 KUDLIGI, TALUK KUDLIGI,
                                 DIST: VIJAYANGAR - 583 135.

                            5.   GUDEKOTE TOWN POLICE STATION,
                                 THROUGH ITS P.S.I., GUDEKOTE,
                                 TQ. KUDLIGI, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR - 583 135.

                            6.   THE TAHASILDAR,
                                 TAHASILDAR OFFICE, KUDLIGI 583 135,
                                 TQ: KUDLIGI, DIST: VIJYANAGAR.
                                                                              ...RESPONDENTS
                            (BY SRI. V.S.KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R6)
                                         -2-
                                                 NC: 2025:KHC-D:14054
                                               WP No. 105676 of 2025


HC-KAR


     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO REMOVE THE NAME
OF THE PETITIONER FROM THE LIST OF ROWDY SHEET AND ETC.,

      THIS WRIT 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:

A. issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to remove the name of the petitioner from the list of rowdy sheet,

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

2. Heard Sri.Srinand A. Pachapure, learned counsel

for the petitioner and Sri.V.S.Kalasurmath, learned AGA

respondent Nos.1 to 6.

3. The brief facts germane to the case are as

follows:

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14054

HC-KAR

The petitioner was involved in four criminal cases. In

C.C. No.5056/2015, the petitioner was acquitted by an

order dated 05.10.2016. In C.C.No.173/2015, he was

acquitted on 05.12.2022. In C.C. No.164/2020, he was

acquitted on 29.09.2023. In Special Case No.552/2019, he

was acquitted on 10.11.2023. These successive acquittals

clearly indicate that the cases registered against the

petitioner were frivolous in nature.

4. Despite his acquittal in all four cases, the

petitioner's name was included in the rowdy-sheet

maintained by the 4th and 5th respondent police stations.

Following his acquittal, the petitioner submitted a

representation seeking deletion of his name from the said

rowdy-sheet. However, the representation has not been

considered and has remained unaddressed. Hence, the

petitioner has approached this Court with the present

petition.

5. The learned Additional Government Advocate

(AGA) submitted that mere acquittal in criminal cases does

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14054

HC-KAR

not automatically entitle a person to deletion of his name

from the rowdy-sheet. Several other factors are to be

considered for inclusion or deletion of a name from the list

maintained at the police station.

6. In light of the petitioner's acquittal in all the

aforementioned cases, and unless any extraordinary

circumstances exist, the petitioner is permitted to submit a

fresh representation to the 3rd respondent, who shall

consider the same and pass appropriate orders in

accordance with law.

7. While considering the said representation, the 3rd

respondent shall also take into account the judgment

rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench in B.S. Prakash vs.

State of Karnataka & Others, W.P. No.4504/2021, disposed

of on 22.04.2022, wherein the Bench has laid down

principles governing the inclusion and deletion of names in

the rowdy-sheet, which reads as follows:

"In the above circumstances, all these Writ Petition is disposed off prescribing the following guidelines for

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14054

HC-KAR

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 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

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14054

HC-KAR

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.

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

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14054

HC-KAR

Police Manual, 1965."

8. Therefore, the 3rd respondent is directed to

consider the petitioner's representation, if submitted, in

light of the above observations and pass necessary orders

within a reasonable time.

9. Ordered accordingly.

10. It is needless to observe that, unless

circumstances so warrant, the peaceful life of the petitioner

shall not be disturbed.

Sd/-