[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Mohd Hajee @ Atc Hajee vs The Superintendent Of Police on 29 January, 2026
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:692
WP No. 204208 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO.204208 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
MOHD. HAJEE @ ATC HAJEE
S/O MOHD. MUJAYEEL CHINNUMIYA,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: MOBILE SHOP,
R/O MEHABOOB NAGAR, KALABURAGI,
DIST. KALABURAGI 585102.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NARENDRA N, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
KALABURAGI, AT KALABURAGI-585102.
Digitally signed
by RENUKA 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: HIGH THROUGH ROZA POLICE STATION KALABURAGI,
COURT OF REPRESENTED BY SPP
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI-585107.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIRANAGOUDA M. BIRADAR, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A)
ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS THEREBY
DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT POLICE NOT TO HARASS THE
PETITIONER BY CALLING PERSONAL APPEARANCE BEFORE THE
POLICE ON EVERY OCCASION AND ALSO CONSIDER THE
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:692
WP No. 204208 of 2025
HC-KAR
REPRESENTATION BY THE PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT NO.2
AS AT ANNEXURE-C.
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
The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following
reliefs:
"a) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus thereby
directing the respondent police not to harass the
petitioner by calling personal appearance before the
police on every occasion and also consider the
representation by the petitioner to respondent no.2 as at
Annexure-C.
b) Issue any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court
deems fit in view of the facts and circumstances of the
case"
2. It is the contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner was involved in Crime
No.137/2018 for offences punishable under Sections 143,
147, 148, 364, 302 read with Section 149 of IPC
registered by Roza Police Station, Kalaburagi in the year
2018 as accused No.4. After trial, the petitioner was
acquitted. It is the contention of petitioner that he has
NC: 2026:KHC-K:692
HC-KAR
been frequently summoned to the jurisdictional police
station in the guise of him being included in the Rowdy
Sheet Register and insisting him to be present before the
police station every now and then, especially during
festival times.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
contends that despite being acquitted in the above
mentioned case, a rowdy sheet has been opened including
his name in the Rowdy Sheet Register by the respondent-
police. It is also submitted that the co-accused in the very
same case was also issued a notice to include his name in
the rowdy sheet and he had approached this Court in WP
No.201937/2025, wherein this Court allowed the petition
and ordered for removal of the name of the said co-
accused from the Rowdy Sheet Register. Hence, petitioner
left with no other alternative efficacious remedy has
approached this Court in view of the respondents having
not answered the representations so given to remove his
name from the Rowdy Sheet Register.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:692
HC-KAR
4. Per contra, learned Additional Government
Advocate contends that there is no illegality in the action
of the respondent-police. In view of the case registered
against the petitioner, his name was included in the Rowdy
Sheet Register, as he was a threat to the society, causing
breach of peace and tranquility and accordingly seeks
dismissal of the petition.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned Additional Government Advocate for
respondent-State.
6. The present petition is filed for consideration of
the petitioner's representation and to remove his name
based on the materials placed by the petitioner including
the acquittal order and false implication. When such a
representation is filed, it becomes the duty and obligation
of the respondent-Police to consider the same in
accordance with law, to peruse those acquittal orders and
any 'B' report filed by the Police against the petitioner and
NC: 2026:KHC-K:692
HC-KAR
any false implication of the petitioner and pass suitable
orders on the representation. Merely keeping quiet without
replying to the representation is not a good thing to
happen on behalf of the State. They may either consider it
favourably or not, but either way, they are duty bound to
pass suitable orders on the said representations.
7. This Court in a reported judgment in the case of
Sri B. S. Prakash v. State of Karnataka and others
reported in 2022 (4) KCCR 3648, has laid down the
guidelines for consideration of inclusion of the name of the
petitioner in the rowdy sheet and the procedure to be
followed. Therefore, it becomes a duty mandatory for the
respondent authorities to follow the guidelines laid down
by this Court in the case of B.S.Prakash (supra).
8. Accordingly, I pass the following:
NC: 2026:KHC-K:692
HC-KAR
ORDER
i. This petition is allowed.
ii. Writ of mandamus is issued directing the
respondents to consider the representation of the
petitioner dated 04.09.2025 at Annexure-C in accordance
with law, by following the strict 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. The same shall be followed within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
JUDGE
NJ
List No.: 4 Sl No.: 3
CT:SI
