[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Guddi Papadi Narasappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 January, 2026
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:429
WP No. 203899 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO.203899 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
GUDDI PAPADI NARASAPPA S/O YANKAPPA,
AGED 28 YEARS, OCC: BAILDAR WORK,
TIMPARU PATE, RAICHUR
DIST. RAICHUR-584102.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANTOSHKUMAR B. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA HOME DEPARTMENT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR BHEEDHI,
Digitally signed BENGALURU-560001.
by RENUKA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, RAICHUR
KARNATAKA RAICHUR HYDERABAD ROAD, MANCHALEPUR,
DIST. RAICHUR, KARNATAKA-584101.
3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, RAICHUR
RAICHUR HYDERABAD ROAD, MANCHALEPUR,
DIST. RAICHUR, KARNATAKA-584101.
4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
NETAJI NAGAR POLICE STATION,
DIST. RAICHUR-584102.
REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:429
WP No. 203899 of 2025
HC-KAR
KALABURAGI-585105.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE
WRIT(S)/ORDER(S)/DIRECTION(S), THEREBY QUASHING THE
ROWDY SHEET REGISTER ORDER/DIRECTION NO.
RAUV/ROWDY/ 2016 DATED 17-06-2016 MAINTAINED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.04 (ANNEXURE-A) B) ISSUE ANY OTHER
WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION THAT THIS PETITIONER IS
ENTITLED UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE.
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
Facts of the case are that the petitioner is a
businessman residing in Raichur, Dist: Raichur. It is
contended that there was personal enmity between the
petitioner and one Thimmaiah and others. In furtherance
of the above enmity, there erupted a fight between two
groups of people. Accordingly, based on the complaint, an
FIR came to be registered against petitioner in Crime
No.25/2016 and 26/2016, within the jurisdiction of
NC: 2026:KHC-K:429
HC-KAR
Netajinagar Police Station, Raichur. The charge sheet
came to be filed against this petitioner in Crime
No.25/2016 (Spl.AC(SC) No.290/2017) on the file of II
Additional Sessions Judge, Raichur, for the offences
punishable under Sections 324, 323, 149, 148, 147, 143,
504, 506, 307 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (10) of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 and in Crime No.26/2016 (CC
No.1794/2023) for the offence punishable under Sections
143, 147, 148, 332, 336, 353, 109 read with Section 149
of IPC. Based on the registration of the crime and filing of
the charge sheet, respondent No.4/Inspector of Police
recommended to open a rowdy sheet against the
petitioner herein. Based on which the respondent No.3,
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Raichur ordered for
opening up of the rowdy sheet without issuing the
proposal notice. A rowdy sheet came to be opened in the
name of petitioner dated 17.06.2016 by entering his name
in the register.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:429
HC-KAR
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the
petitioner that the case so made out by the respondent in
Crime No.25/2016 and 26/2016, the petitioner herein
came to be acquitted on 21.04.2018 and on 30.01.2025
after trial. Therefore, it is contended that there is no
criminal case pending as against the petitioner or any
complaint registered against the petitioner before the
police station. It is further contended that on the basis of
the Rowdy Sheet Register, maintained by the respondent
police, respondent No.4 has been frequently summoning
the petitioner to the police station and ordering him to sit
the entire day in the police station without there being any
complaint, FIR or even an allegation against the petitioner,
despite the fact that he is not required in any case for any
investigation whatsoever.
3. It is further contended that the petitioner has
been mentally harassed and not able to cultivate his land
by utilising his valuable time, which is now spent in visiting
the police station, without there being any complaint
NC: 2026:KHC-K:429
HC-KAR
registered or any basis, which is in total violation of the
fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India,
restricting and restraining the freedom of movement and
the fundamental rights of the citizen, namely the
petitioner herein. Therefore, petitioner submitted a
representation on 03.04.2025 to review and remove his
name from the Rowdy Sheet Register. But respondent
No.2 has not communicated or passed any order in respect
of the representation so submitted. Hence, left with no
other alternative efficacious remedy. Petitioner is
perforced to approach this Court for indulgence.
4. It is further contended by learned counsel for
the petitioner that the respondent authorities primarily
invoked or opened the rowdy sheet against the petitioner
without following the provisions of the Karnataka Police
Manual, 1965 more specifically standing order No.1059
and the procedure contemplated therein, with regard to
the intricacies enumerated therein including naming the
petitioner as whether Part A, Part B or Part C and following
NC: 2026:KHC-K:429
HC-KAR
other procedures contemplated therein. It is also
contended by learned counsel that the respondents are
hell bent to brand the petitioner as a rowdy, despite the
fact that the petitioner has been acquitted in the two cases
that were framed against him and also the fact that there
are no cases pending against him any more in any police
station. Therefore, when the petitioner made an
application or representation, the respondent authorities
ought to have accepted the representation and provided
an opportunity to the petitioner to putforth his case of
there being no allegation or criminal cases pending against
him and that the inclusion of his name and continuing his
name in the Rowdy Sheet Register is violative the
principles of natural justice including his personal liberty.
It is further contended by learned counsel that there is all
possibilities that the petitioner may be implicated in other
unnecessary cases, as petitioner is vulnerable to be
dragged into the police station and framed in some cases,
NC: 2026:KHC-K:429
HC-KAR
where he is not even involved. Apparently there is no case
pending against the petitioner in any of the police stations.
5. It is further contended by learned counsel for
the petitioner that the petitioner does not fall into the
bracket of standing order No.1059 of the Karnataka Police
Manual and he ought not to have been included in the
Rowdy Sheet Register by the respondents, thereby curbing
the fundamental right of the petitioner including Article 19
and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is also
contended by learned counsel that the petitioner's name
has been included in the rowdy sheet without conducting
any enquiry nor providing an opportunity of hearing or
calling for any explanation or following the procedure
contemplated under the Karnataka Police Manual, more
specifically standing order No.1059. It is also contended
that in spite of the petitioner being acquitted in the two
cases that were filed against him due to personal enmity
and despite the representation being made, the
petitioner's name is not struck off from the entry in the
NC: 2026:KHC-K:429
HC-KAR
register of rowdies, thereby causing untold hardship and
violation of his fundamental right of free movement and
his liberty. The respondent No.4 has been unnecessarily
calling the petitioner to the jurisdictional police station and
keeping him, for no reason whatsoever, which is against
the Constitutional fundamental rights in favour of the
petitioner. It is also not the case of the respondent that
there are any cases registered against the petitioner, to be
called to the jurisdictional police station at the whims and
fancies of the respondents. Under the circumstances,
learned counsel seeks to set aside the impugned order of
branding the petitioner as a rowdy sheeter in the register
maintained by the respondent authority, namely
respondent No.4.
6. Per contra, learned Additional Government
Advocate representing the respondent/State contends that
on the basis of the criminal cases registered against the
petitioner and others, petitioner was included in the Rowdy
Sheet Register. It is no doubt true that the petitioner has
NC: 2026:KHC-K:429
HC-KAR
been acquitted in the first case in the year 2018 and in the
second case in the year 2025. But the fact remains that he
had been charge sheeted in both the cases and underwent
trial, but has been acquitted. Therefore, there is no
illegality committed or procedural lapse by the
respondents in including the name of the petitioner in the
rowdy sheet maintained by the respondents. Therefore,
the petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be
dismissed, as the judgment relied by the petitioner in the
case of Sri B. S. Prakash v. State of Karnataka and
others reported in 2022 (4) KCCR 3648, is much later
than the registration of the name of petitioner in the
rowdy sheet and it should not ennure to his benefit.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned Additional Government Advocate for the
respondents.
8. 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
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:429
HC-KAR
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
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
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:429
HC-KAR
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
was involved in a criminal case on a personal enmity of a
rivalry between two gangs, he has been framed, in which
also the petitioner has been acquitted in the years 2018
and 2025. It is also contended that though the petitioner
has made a representation to the respondent authorities
after the acquittal on 03.04.2025, the representation 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.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:429
HC-KAR
9. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court in
the case of Sri B. S. Prakash (supra) laid down certain
guidelines. The guidelines laid down by this Court are as
follows:
"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
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:429
HC-KAR
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 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.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:429
HC-KAR
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.
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:429
HC-KAR
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."
10. The judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu in CRMC
No.758/2017 dealt with issue of defamation, relying upon
the infamous case of Smt.Kiran Bedi and Jinder Singh
V. the Committee of Inquiry and another1, and held
that a "good reputation" is an element of personal security
and is protected by the Constitution equally with a right to
enjoyment of life, liberty and property. So it has to be held
to be essential component vis-a-vis right to life of a citizen
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, recognizes
the right to have opinions and the right of freedom of
expression under Article 19 of the Constitution of India is
subject to right to reputation of others. Reputation is "not
AIR 1989 SC 714
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:429
HC-KAR
only a salt of life, but the purest treasure and the most
precious perfume of life". 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 in the two
cases, which culminated in acquittal after detailed trial and
even after the representation given by the petitioner for
removing his name from the Rowdy Sheet Register, there
is no response or reply or action by the respondents in
removing his name. The continuation of the name of a
person in a rowdy sheet without there being any cogent
reason does not augur well with the State as a parens
patriae, which is a guardian of the citizens of this country.
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:429
HC-KAR
For the reason that when there is no case pending, no
allegation made, no complaint registered, and despite
acquittal order passed against the petitioner, the State has
to provide an opportunity to the citizen to reform himself,
to lead a normal life and mix with the society to lead a life
of a normal citizen. Branding him to be a rowdy by
opening rowdy sheet is not the solution and it adds to the
problem of creation of mindset of a rowdy, a criminal and
leading to joining of gangs and creation of gang wars,
which is detrimental to the society.
11. In view of the 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
acquittal in the two cases, this Court is of the opinion that
the petitioner has made out a valid case to consider
favourably. Accordingly, I pass the following:
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:429
HC-KAR
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned order dated 17.06.2016,
registering the name of the petitioner in the Rowdy Sheet
Register, maintained by the 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 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. Prakash v.
State of Karnataka and others reported in 2022 (4)
KCCR 3648.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
JUDGE
NJ
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38
CT:SI
