[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Nayeem Khan vs The State on 6 February, 2026
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1105
WP No. 200163 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO.200163 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
NAYEEM KHAN S/O ALAM KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O JALALWADI, KALABURAGI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MD. IDRIS JAGIRDAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE THROUGH
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
B-SUB-DIVISION, KALABURAGI.
2. THE POLICE INSPECTOR
ROZA POLICE STATION, KALABURAGI
(BOTH REP. BY LEARNED ADDL. S.P.P.
Digitally signed by HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
VARSHA N KALABURAGI BENCH-585107).
RASALKAR
Location: HIGH ...RESPONDENTS
COURT OF (BY SRI. JAISHANKAR SHESHADRI, AGA)
KARNATAKA
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ROWDY SHEET BEARING NO.
DzÉñÀ.¸ÀA.02/gËr²Ãl/J¹©(©)/PÀ/2021 DATED 18.04.2021 MAINTAINED AT
ROZA POLICE STATION KALABURAGI, DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO
IMMEDIATELY CLOSE AND DELETE THE PETITIONER'S NAME FROM
ROWDY REGISTER.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1105
WP No. 200163 of 2026
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:
"Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the rowdy sheet
bearing no. DzÉñÀ.¸ÀA.02/gËr²Ãl/J¹©(©)/PÀ/2021 dated
18.04.2021 maintained at Roza Police Station
kalaburagi, direct the respondent to immediately
close and delete the petitioner's name from rowdy
register or gran any other reliefs that this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit."
2. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner
that the petitioner is a law-abiding citizen. Respondents
have illegally and arbitrarily included the name of the
petitioner in the Rowdy Sheet Register, maintained at
Rosa Police Station, Kalaburagi. It is further contended
that petitioner has not been convicted of any offence nor is
he involved in any criminal activities, falling within the
guidelines of opening a rowdy sheet. It is the contention of
learned counsel for the petitioner that vide order dated
18.04.2021, the petitioner's name was included in the
rowdy sheet bearing No. DzÉñÀ.¸ÀA.02/gËr²Ãl/J¹©(©)/PÀ/2021. It is
further contended that petitioner is a well-known person in
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1105
HC-KAR
the society, surviving with his wife and children. Due to
the inclusion of the name in the rowdy sheet, the
respondent-police have been continuously monitoring and
conducting surveillance, visiting the house and workplace
of the petitioner, thereby causing embarrassment and
harassment to him, his family members and defaming his
name in the society, which is a violation of his right to
privacy, dignity and of Articles 19 and 21 of the
Constitution of India.
3. Learned counsel further contends that the
respondent authorities have not followed the proper
procedure laid down in the Karnataka Police Manual, 1998
and without following the said procedure, they have
included the name of the petitioner in the Rowdy Sheet
Register, which is illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, he seeks
indulgence of this Court to set aside the order dated
18.04.2021 and remove his name from the Rowdy Sheet
Register maintained by respondent-police.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1105
HC-KAR
4. Per contra, learned Additional Government
Advocate sustains the impugned order and contends that
the petitioner is detrimental to the interest of the society.
He is involved in many criminal offences, based on which
his name is registered in the Rowdy Sheet Register, by
following due process of law. Hence, the petition does
warrant interference.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned Additional Government Advocate for the
State.
6. 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
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1105
HC-KAR
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
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
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1105
HC-KAR
has not been followed and merely because he was
involved in a criminal case, he has been framed.
7. 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
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."
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1105
HC-KAR
8. 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
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
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1105
HC-KAR
'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.
(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
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1105
HC-KAR
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
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
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1105
HC-KAR
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.
(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
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1105
HC-KAR
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.
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."
9. In view of the non-compliance of the procedure
contemplated under standing order No.1059 of the
Karnataka Police Manual, this Court is of the opinion that
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1105
HC-KAR
the petitioner has made out a valid case to consider
favourably. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned order bearing no.
DzÉñÀ.¸ÀA.02/gËr²Ãl/J¹©(©)/PÀ/2021 dated
18.04.2021 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 4 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
shall strictly follow the guidelines laid down
by this Court in the case of Sri B. S.
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1105
HC-KAR
Prakash v. State of Karnataka and
others reported in 2022 (4) KCCR 3648.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
JUDGE
NJ
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8
CT:SI
