Allowed

Sri Sayeed Ahmed v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC28 Oct 2022WP/9071/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to quash an order adding the petitioner to the rowdy register and direct its removal. The High Court held that without material showing alleged acts fell under Order 1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual, the petitioner was entitled to relief. The impugned order was quashed and name deleted.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order of 10.01.2019 quashed; name of petitioner deleted from rowdy register.

Sri Sayeed Ahmed Vs the State of Karnataka — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.9071/2019 (GM-POLICE)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI SAYEED AHMED S/O. LATE ABDUL SALAM, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.641, KHADRIM MOHALLA, M.B. ROAD, KOLAR – 563 101. ... PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI PRABHUGOUD B. TUMBIGI, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶11

SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHIKKABALLAPURA – 562 101.

¶12

DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHIKKABALLAPURA – 562 101.

¶13

CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN, CHIKKABALLAPURA – 562 101. ... RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI ARUN K.S., HCGP)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO

¶16

¶17

QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT/ORDER DATED 10.01.2019 PASSED BY THE R-2 PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-R; AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO REMOVE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER FROM THE ROWDY REGISTER OPENED BY THE R-4 CHIKKABALLAPURA POLICE.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the endorsement/order dated 10/01/2019 passed in DCRB/CBP/CC/335/2019, by the 2^nd respondent vide Annexure – R and a writ of mandamus directing respondent/police to remove the name of the petitioner from the rowdy register opened by the 4^th respondent/Chikkaballapur Police.

¶21

The case of the petitioner is that he is a permanent resident of Kolar, a law abiding citizen and hales from a respectable family and that he was never involved in any criminal or unlawful activity in any crime except as alleged by some of his relatives who have implicated him in criminal matters by registering

¶22

¶23

false complaint in C.C.No.976/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 506(B) IPC and C.C.No.1108/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 354 D, 292A, 506, 509 read with Section 34 of IPC as per Annexures - D to H and J. It is the case of the petitioner that though the petitioner is a law abiding and not involved in any of the alleged offences, an inclusion of petitioner’s name in the rowdy register caused a stigma in the society and thus, seeks for deletion of his name from the list of the rowdy register opened by the 4^th respondent.

¶24

The respondent/State have not filed

¶25

statement of objections.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner

¶27

and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.

¶28

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri

¶30

Prabhugoud B. Tumbigi submits that the respondent/ authorities without considering that the alleged offence do not constitute to include the name of the petitioner in the rowdy register as the offences alleged by the complainant does not attract the ingredients mentioned in Order 1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual and thus, the order passed as per Annexure – R holding that the petitioner is active in causing disturbance to law and orders and taking a decision to continue the name of the petitioner in the rowdy sheeter is not justifiable. It is further contended that the maintaining of the rowdy register against the petitioner is arbitrary without any basis and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is the contention of learned counsel that the petitioner is being implicated by his relatives, who are in the habit

¶31

¶32

of lodging false complainants against innocent

¶33

persons.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner filed a memo to the effect that pending cases which were registered against the petitioner has resulted in acquittal and would contend that the petitioner is not involved in any of the crime as alleged by the complainant and the petitioner has been honourably acquitted and not on the basis of benefit of doubt and sought to allow the petition.

¶35

The said memo is placed on record.

¶36

Per contra, Sri Arun K.S., learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that the petitioner having been an accused in several cases and would contend that the petitioner is likely to continue to indulge in criminal activities and hence, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief.

¶37

¶38

9. Having heard learned counsel for the

¶39

parties, the only question that arises for consideration is:

¶40

“Whether the offences alleged against the petitioner would attract the provisions of Order 1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual to include the name of the petitioner in the rowdy sheet?”

¶41

This court has carefully considered the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition papers.

¶42

The relevant Order 1059 of the Karnataka

¶43

Police Manual read as under:

¶44

“REGISTER OF ROWDIES

¶45

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

¶46

(2) The main forms of rowdyism are:-

¶47

¶48

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

¶49

(b) Intimidation of law abiding people by acts of violence or by show of force or by abusive language;

¶50

(c) Forcible collection of subscription;

¶51

(d) Taking sides in petty quarrels between land-lords and tenants or between cotenants and threatening people of the opposite party;

¶52

(e) Disorderly conduct;

¶53

(f) Rioting; and

¶54

(g) Snatching and committing robbery”

¶55

From the record which are available along

¶56

with the writ petition and the documents filed along

¶57

with memo by the petitioner, it is made clear that the petitioner has been acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 341D and 506B on 04/01/2020 in C.C.Nos.166/2019 (Old C.C.No.976/2016), and C.C.No.327/2019 for the

¶58

offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 504 of the IPC and the entire proceedings in

¶59

¶60

C.C.No.1108/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 354D, 292A, 506 read with 34 of IPC, by order dated 20/07/2022 in Crl. Petition No.8521/2018 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has been quashed.

¶61

Learned High Court Government Pleader was directed to obtain instructions regarding pendency of any criminal matter as against the petitioner. On verification, learned HCGP submitted that there is no criminal case pending against the petitioner.

¶62

The said submission is placed on record.

¶63

Perusal of Order 1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual, it would clearly depict that the main provisions of rowdyism are mentioned in the said order. Though learned HCGP would contend that the petitioner would be involved in further activities, is not acceptable for the reason that the respondent has not produced

¶64

¶65

any material to show that the petitioner has been indulged in any of the categories enumerated under Order 1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual. In the absence of any material, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought for. Accordingly, the point framed for consideration is answered in the negative. In the event if the petitioner indulges in any of the activity as provided under Order 1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual, certainly the police are entitled to take action against the petitioner, if need arises bv .

¶66

In light of the reasons stated supra, this Court pass the following:

¶67

ORDER

¶68

(i) The impugned order dated 10/01/2019 in DCRB/CBP/CC/335/2019 passed by the 2^nd respondent is hereby quashed.

¶69

10 -

¶70

(ii) The direction is issued to the 2^nd respondent to delete the name of the petitioner from the rowdy register maintained by the 4^th respondent.

¶71

(iii) It is needless to observe that the respondents are at liberty to take action in accordance with law, if need arises in future.

¶72

Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of .

¶73

Sd/JUDGE

¶74

Sri Sayeed Ahmed v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sayeed Ahmed v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Sujatha R @ Saraswathi Vs Sri Mahesh D Yatnalli

The Managing Committee Vs the Karnataka State Board of Auqaf

Mirza Tanzeem Alam Beg Vs the Union of India

Sri Manjunatha Vs Sri Siddooji

M/S Whitefiled Developers Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Chikkamma Vs the Manager