[Cites 18, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Ramesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 February, 2026
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1563
WP No. 200125 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO.200125 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
RAMESH S/O BHEEMSINGH CHAVAN,
AGE: 37 YEARS,
OCC: PRIVATE WORK AND SOCIAL WORKER,
R/O KERUR TANDA,
TQ. AND DIST. KALABURAGI-585213.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVI BHEEMSINGH CHAWAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
Digitally signed VIDHANA SOUDHA,
by VARSHA N
RASALKAR BENGALURU-560001.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
KARNATAKA KALABURAGI CITY-585105.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
KALABURAGI CITY-585105.
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
KALABURAGI CITY-585105.
5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
SUB-URBAN POLICE STATION,
KALABURAGI DISTRICT-585101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, AGA)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1563
WP No. 200125 of 2026
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, R/W SECTION 528 OF BNSS,
2023, (SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C.) PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT
OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER
OR QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OPENING THE ROWDY
SHEET BEARING NO. DzÉñÀ¸A À :17/gËr²Ãmï/J.¹.¦.(¹)PÀ/2021 ¢£ÁAPÀ
10.09.2021, PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 VIDE ANNEXURE-
A, AS BEING ARBITRARY ILLEGAL, AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE
14 AND 21 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA B) CONSEQUENTLY,
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO FORTHWITH
REMOVE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER FROM THE ROWDY
SHEET/ ROWDY REGISTER AND ALL CONNECTED RECORDS
MAINTAINED PURSUANT THERETO.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Learned Additional Government Advocate
accepts notice for the respondents.
3. Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order
bearing DzÉñÀ ¸ÀA:17/gËr²Ãmï/J.¹.¦.(¹)PÀ/2021 dated 10.09.2021
passed by respondent No.4 wherein the respondent
authorities have opened a rowdy sheet in the name of
petitioner which according to the petitioner affects his
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1563
HC-KAR
reputation, liberty and fundamental rights. He contends
that the opening of the rowdy sheet and including the
name of the petitioner in the register of rowdy sheets is
arbitrary, illegal and violates the fundamental rights
granted to the petitioner under the Constitution of India. It
is contended that petitioner is a law abiding citizen. He has
completed his education in Bachelor of Arts and
permanent resident of Kalaburagi district. He has
participated and contested in the MP election for Lok
Sabha elections and a false case has been registered in
Crime No.132 of 2020 at Rural Police Station, Kalaburagi
for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 354,
427, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. The petitioner
has filed an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. for
discharge and the same was allowed by the Trial Court
and the petitioner was discharged. Two other cases were
registered against the petitioner in Crime No.129/2021, in
which case also petitioner has filed an application under
Section 239 of Cr.P.C. for discharge and the same is
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1563
HC-KAR
pending adjudication. One more case in Crime
No.156/2025 at the University Police Station, Kalaburagi is
registered against the petitioner which is also pending
adjudication. It is the contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner that opening of the Rowdy Sheet and including
the name in the register of Rowdy Sheet by the
respondent authorities is illegal, arbitrary and violative of
the constitutional provisions and the Karnataka Police
Manual, more specifically Standing Order No.1059, as the
respondent authorities have not followed the due process
and procedure of law, and have not assigned any valid
reason for including the name of the petitioner in the
register of rowdy sheet. Unless the name of the petitioner
is included in the rowdy sheet by following due process
and procedure, the same is unsustainable. Hence, he
seeks to allow this petition.
4. Per contra, learned Additional Government
Advocate representing the respondent-State sustains the
impugned order contending that the petitioner is involved
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1563
HC-KAR
in three criminal cases. No doubt, in one case he was
discharged, but in other two cases the proceedings are yet
to be completed. The procedures are followed in
accordance to law under the Karnataka Police Manual.
Hence, he seeks dismissal of the petition.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned Additional Government Advocate.
6. The point for consideration is whether the
respondent authorities have followed the procedure
contemplated under Standing Order No.1059 of the
Karnataka Police Manual and the procedure to be followed
while including the name of petitioner in the rowdy sheet.
7. 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
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1563
HC-KAR
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
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
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1563
HC-KAR
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
was involved in criminal cases, in one of the cases,
petitioner was acquitted in the year 2025.
8. 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:1563
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."
[
9. 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
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1563
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.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1563
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
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1563
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.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1563
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.
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1563
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."
10. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case
of Sri B. S. Prakash v. State of Karnataka and others
reported in 2022 (4) KCCR 3648 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 in one case,
no action is taken by the respondents in removing his
name.
11. In view of non-compliance of the procedure
contemplated under standing order No.1059 of the
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1563
HC-KAR
Karnataka Police Manual, this Court is of the opinion that
the petitioner has made out a valid case to consider
favourably.
12. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned order of opening Rowdy
Sheet in the name of the petitioner bearing
DzÉñÀ ¸ÀA:17/gËr²Ãmï /J.¹.¦.(¹)PÀ / 2021 dated
10.09.2021 vide Annexure-A passed by
respondent No.4, 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.
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1563
HC-KAR
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
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.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
JUDGE
VNR
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11
Ct:si
