[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Srikanth vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 February, 2026

Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur

Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur

                                                -1-
                                                             NC: 2026:KHC-K:1491
                                                          WP No. 201266 of 2025


                      HC-KAR




                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                                        KALABURAGI BENCH

                            DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

                                              BEFORE
                           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
                                WRIT PETITION NO.201266 OF 2025
                      BETWEEN:

                      SRIKANTH S/O SHIVALINGAPPA FARTHABAD,
                      AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: RATION SHOP BUSINESS,
                      R/O SIRNOOR VILLAGE,
                      TQ. AND DIST. KALABURAGI-585308.

                                                                   ...PETITIONER
                      (BY SRI MAHANTESH S. DESAI, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                           HOME DEPARTMENT
                           VIDHAN SOUDHA,
                           BENGALURU-560001.
Digitally signed by
VARSHA N
RASALKAR              2.   ACP SOUTH SUB-DIVISION POLICE,
Location: HIGH             DIST. KALABURAGI-585105.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
                      3.   THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
                           AT KALABURAGI-585102.

                      4.   THE POLICE INSPECTOR,
                           FARTHABAD POLICE STATION
                           AT KALABURAGI-585102,

                           RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4
                           REPRESENTED BY THE
                           STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
                           HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                                  -2-
                                             NC: 2026:KHC-K:1491
                                          WP No. 201266 of 2025


HC-KAR




      KALABURAGI BENCH.

                                                 ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI VIRANAGOUDA M. BIRADAR, AGA)

       THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL
FOR      THE     RECORDS     PERTAINING     TO   OPENING     AND
CONTINUANCE OF THE ROWDY SHEET MAINTAINED AGAINST
THE PETITIONER, INCLUDING THE ORDER APPROVAL PASSED
BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2, CONSEQUENTLY TO FURNISH THE
PETITIONER THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE SAID DOCUMENTS.
B) DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CLOSE THE ROWDY SHEET
MAINTAINED IN THE PETITIONERS NAME.


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


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR


                           ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to

quash the rowdy sheet maintained in the name of the

petitioner.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is running

fair price shop at Sirnoor village, Tq. and Dist. Kalaburagi.

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1491

HC-KAR

That the petitioner was implicated in Crime No.61/2019 of

Farthabad Police Station for the offences punishable under

Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 326, 504, 506 read

with Section 149 of IPC.

3. Based on the registration of the crime

respondents/Police opened a rowdy sheet against him in

the register.

4. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner

that the petitioner has been acquitted in the in

C.C.No.5463/2019 vide judgment dated 15.07.2024 and

presently there are no criminal cases pending against the

petitioner. Despite which, the petitioner's name is included

in the rowdy sheet and he is summoned to the police

station time and again without any reason whatsoever,

illegally and contrary to the provisions of Order Nos.1058

and 1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual. It is also

contended that no show cause notice is issued and merely

on the basis of an earlier crime number, the name of the

petitioner is included in the rowdy sheet. Therefore, the

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1491

HC-KAR

petitioner made an application under the Right to

Information Act, seeking a copy of the order, but the

respondents declined to furnish the copy of the rowdy

sheet order and instead provided only the title of the

requisition report sent by respondent No.4 to respondent

No.2.

5. It is contended that when the petitioner made

application or representation, the respondent authorities

ought to have accepted the representation and provided

an opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case of

there being no allegation of criminal cases pending against

him and that inclusion of his name and continuing his

name in the Rowdy Sheet Register is violative of the

principles of natural justice including his personal liberty.

6. It is also contended that in spite of the

petitioner being acquitted in the case that was filed

against him and despite the application under the RTI

being made for seeking a copy of the order, the same has

not been replied.

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1491

HC-KAR

7. It is also contended by the learned counsel that

respondents have not followed the necessary guidelines

laid down by this Court in the case of Sri B. S. Prakash v.

State of Karnataka and others reported in 2022 (4)

KCCR 3648. Therefore, he contends that implicating the

petitioner and registering his name in the rowdy sheet is

illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. Hence,

the name of the petitioner requires to be removed and

consequently the said order be quashed. Hence, the

petitioner is perforced to approach this Court, invoking the

writ jurisdiction.

8. Per contra, learned Additional Government

Advocate representing respondent-State admits the

acquittal of the petitioner in the aforesaid criminal case

and on verification and after taking instructions, submits

that the petitioner's name is still continuing in the rowdy

sheet, but the name of the petitioner was included in the

Rowdy Sheet Register prior to acquittal and also question

of following the guidelines laid down by the Co-ordinate

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1491

HC-KAR

Bench of this Court in the case of Sri B. S. Prakash

(supra) would not arise for the reason that inclusion of the

name of the petitioner in the Rowdy Sheet Register is prior

to the said judgment. Hence, the same will not enure to

their benefit. Accordingly, he seeks to dismiss the petition.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner

and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State

10. It is a fundamental rule of law that when a

person is implicated as a rowdy sheeter by including his

name in the list of rowdy sheet, the onus is upon the State

to follow the due procedure contemplated under the

relevant rules and regulations. In the present case, the

Karnataka Police Manual, more specifically, the Register of

Rowdies maintained in order No.1059, which deals with

history sheets and rowdy sheets and enrollment or

registration of persons in the said sheet for register for

continuous monitoring by the police authorities, is not

followed. Standing Order No.1059 deals with registration

of rowdies. The definition provided is that a rowdy may be

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1491

HC-KAR

defined as a gunda and includes a hooligan, tough,

vagabond or any person who is dangerous to public peace

and tranquility. There are many forms of rowdism, which

are described therein and the process and procedure

contemplated to be maintained in different parts, namely

Part A, Part B and Part C, which govern the maintenance

of a register and the names of the rowdies in their

respective parts. It is the duty and obligation cast upon

the respondents, which is not optional to follow the due

procedure contemplated under the standing orders of the

Karnataka Police Manual, while entering the name of a

person in the rowdy sheet and there are certain

procedures to be mandatorily followed before entering the

names. As contended by learned counsel for the petitioner,

the process and procedure as contemplated under the

standing Order No.1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual

has not been followed and no opportunity was given to the

petitioner to file his reply or explanation for removing his

name in the Rowdy Sheet Register and merely, because he

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1491

HC-KAR

was involved in criminal case, in which also the petitioner

has been acquitted. It is also contended that though the

petitioner has made representation to the respondent

authorities under the RTI for furnishing the copy of the

rowdy sheet, the same has not been considered and even

after the acquittal, he has been summoned to the

jurisdictional police station for unnecessary interrogation,

when there is no case pending against him.

11. It would be relevant to extract paragraph No.17

of the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case

of K. M. Muniswamy Reddy v. State of Karnataka

reported in ILR 1992 KAR 2543, wherein the Division

Bench dealt with similar subject matter, which reads as

under:

"17. There can be no doubt that if any of the Fundamental Right is to be affected by the State action, it has to be authorised by law, in the sense of a law enacted by the Legislature or to be authorised by a subordinate/delegated legislation, like Rules and Regulations. However, if no Fundamental Right is adversely affected by the enforcement of Order No.1059, State is entitled to act upon it, even in

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1491

HC-KAR

case, the said order has no statutory source. On facts, we found that, a reading of Order No.1059 nowhere suggests vesting of an intruding power in the Police Department. enabling the latter to invade any of the Fundamental Rights of the rowdy-sheeted person. The maintenance of rowdy sheet in respect of a suspected person having tendency to commit criminal offence or disturb public peace, is to enable the police to speedy action in cases of breach of public peace; it provides the information of the persons to be watched by the law enforcing agency of the State and nothing more."

[

12. Standing Order No.1059 of Karnataka Police

Manual, 1998 is extracted below:

"1059. (1) A rowdy may be defined as a goonda and includes a hooligan, rough, vagabond or any person who is dangerous to the Public peace and tranquility.

(2) The main forms of rowdyism are:-

a) Passing indecent remarks at women and School and College Girls;

b) Intimidation of Law abiding people by acts of violence or by show of force or by abusive language:

c) Forcible collection of subscription;

d) Taking sides in petty quarrels between land-

lords and tenants or between co-tenants and threatening people of the opposite party;

e) Disorderly conduct;

f) Rioting; and

- 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1491

HC-KAR

g) Snatching and committing robbery

(3) In every Police Station, a 'Register of Rowdies' should be maintained in Form No.100 in three parts viz., Part A, Part B and Part C which should be in separate Volumes. All the volumes are to be treated as confidential records.

(4) (a) Names and particulars of 'Confirmed Rowdies' who are residents in the Police Station concerned should be entered in the Register Part A, a few pages being allotted for each person.

(b) Names and particulars of 'Confirmed Rowdies' who are not residents in the Police Station limits but operate within its jurisdiction and names of 'Homeless Confirmed Rowdies' should be entered in Part B, a few pages being allotted for every person.

(c) Names and particulars of "Novices" who are budding goondas should be entered in Part C. They may be either residents or non-residents of the Police Station concerned.

(5) Prior Orders of the Superintendent of Police or the Sub-Divisional Police Officer should be obtained for entering the name of every rowdy in the Register of Rowdies

(6) Names of persons against whom there are ample instances of rowdyism should be entered in the Register Part A or Part B after the records are checked by the Inspector.

(7) When there are one or more instances of rowdyism against any person or if he has a very bad reputation in the locality as a bully, his name entered in Part 'C' on the ground of very bad reputation, a through enquiry should be made by the Officer in charge of the Police Station before the entry is made.

- 11 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1491

HC-KAR

(8) in the running history, all the Criminal activities of the rowdy including reasonable suspicion of his complicity in cases and/or complaints against him with case numbers, if any, and results of cases, etc., should be mentioned in separate paragraphs which should be numbered chronologically. Against each entry in the running history, there should be reference to Station House Diary entries, case diaries, source reports, mass petitions, petty cases, etc., as the case may be.

(9) Officers incharge of Police Stations should, in the course of their daily scrutiny of the entries in the Station House Diary and the petty cases Register, satisfy themselves that relevant notes therefrom have been made and embodied in the 'Rowdy Register' against the rowdies concerned. Before despatching the copy of the Station House Diary to the Circle Inspector/SDPO, a note of having embodied the information in the rowdy register against the relevant entries, should be made.

(10) Supervisory officers, during their inspections of Police Stations, should satisfy themselves that the entries have been properly made.

(11) When the activities of a non-resident rowdy comes to notice, the Officer in charge of the Police Station concerned should not only make necessary entries in Part 'B' of the Rowdy Register but also promptly transmit information to the Officer in charge of the Police Station in the limits of which the rowdy resides, to enable the latter to make necessary entries in Part 'A' of the Rowdy Register of his Police Station.

(12) When the Part 'C' rowdies indulge frequently in rowdy and anti-social acts, their names should be transferred from Part 'C' or 'B', as the case may be, of the Rowdy Register. When there is no entry against a Part 'C' rowdy during the period of one year from the date of entry of his name in the

- 12 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1491

HC-KAR

Register, his name may be struck off from the Register by the Officer in charge of the Police Station concerned in consultation with the Circle Inspector.

(13) No name should be struck off from Part 'A' or Part 'B' of the Rowdy Register without the order in writing of the Superintendent of Police. In such cases, the Inspectors should send their recommendations to Superintendent of Police through the Sub-Divisional Police Officers.

(14) The Inspectors should maintain in their offices, the entire lists of the names of rowdies with their addresses which are on record in the Rowdy Register of the Police Station under their charge. The lists should be maintained Police Station-wise and maintained separately for each type of rowdies. The Inspectors should once in a quarter, check up their own lists with the Rowdy Registers of the Police Stations under them.

(15) Under the existing laws, a rowdy can be dealt with in the following ways:

(i) Prosecution in specific cases, like robbery, rioting, grievous hurt, etc.,

(ii) Prosecution in appropriate cases for obscene acts and songs under Section 294 L.P.C. (This is a cognizable offence);

(iii) Prosecution for riotous and indecent behaviour, drunkenness, etc., under Sections 92 (o), (p), (q) and (r) of the Karnataka Police Act 1963, in the areas to which the provisions of that Section have been extended:

(iv) Action under Section 108 (b) of the code of Criminal Procedure;

(v) Action under Section 107 Cr. P.C.

(vi) Action under Section 110 Cr. P.C.

- 13 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1491

HC-KAR

(vii) Action under the preventive detention laws;

viii) Externment proceedings under Section 55 and 56 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963; and

(ix) Action under Section 509 I.P.C. for eve- teasing:

(16) Every information that any particular Tea Stall, Restaurant, Eating House or Bar is the resort of rowdies and other types of anti-social elements, when received should promptly be verified and if found correct, the office-in-charge of the Police Station should suitably warn the proprietor/keeper of the Tea-Stall, Restaurant, etc..

(17) With a view to facilitating identification of the rowdies by face, the Officer in charge of the Police Station should, during the roll call, show to the Station Staff recent photographs of the rowdies. He should instruct them to watch their movements and collect information about their activities.

(18) List of persons bound down under Section 106 or under Section 117 of the code of criminal procedure should be maintained in the Police Station with the names and address of the sureties in the following columns:-

1) Sl. No.

2) Name and address of the complainant

3) Gist of the complaint with date and place of occurrence.

4) Names and addresses of persons with aliases bound down.

5) Period for which bound down.

6) Order of the Magistrate with date.

7) Names and address of the sureties.

- 14 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1491

HC-KAR

8) Remarks.

(19) If during the period a person is bound over, there are complaints against him, an immediate enquiry should be made and if the complaints are found to be true, the court should be moved for taking action against the person and the sureties."

13. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case

of Sri B.S.Prakash (supra) has laid down guidelines,

which are to be followed while registering the name of a

person in the Rowdy Sheet Register, which even prior to

the said judgment was a mandate for the respondents to

have followed strictly in accordance to the standing order

No.1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual, which in my

opinion, considering the facts and circumstance of the

present case, has not been followed and even after the

acquittal of the petitioner.

14. In view of non-compliance of the procedure

contemplated under standing order No.1059 of the

Karnataka Police Manual and non-consideration of the

representation given by the petitioner pursuant to his

- 15 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1491

HC-KAR

acquittal, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner

has made out a valid case to consider favourably.

15. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER i. The Writ Petition is allowed.

ii. The impugned order regarding opening of

Rowdy Sheet Register in the name of the

petitioner on 15.07.2019 passed by

respondent No.3 is hereby quashed.

iii. The respondents are hereby directed to

remove the name of the petitioner from the

Rowdy Sheet Register maintained by them,

within a period of four weeks from the date

of receipt of certified copy of the order.

iv. Liberty, however, is reserved to the

respondent/State to proceed in accordance

with law against the petitioner, if at all any

case is made out and while doing so, they

- 16 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1491

HC-KAR

shall strictly follow the guidelines laid down

by this Court in the case of Sri B. S.

Prakash v. State of Karnataka and

others reported in 2022 (4) KCCR 3648.