Disposed

Mubarak Ali v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Nov 2023WP/1524/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition challenging the petitioner's name in the Rowdy Register. Relying on guidelines from a co-ordinate bench, the court issued a mandamus directing respondent No. 2 to consider removal of the name strictly according to specified procedural guidelines within 12 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; mandamus issued to respondent No. 2 to consider removal of petitioner's name from the list of rowdies within 12 weeks.

Mubarak Ali Vs the State of Karnataka — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:40626 WP No. 1524 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 1524 OF 2023 (GM-POLICE)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MUBARAK ALI S/O LATE MOHAMMED ALI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO.3310, 7TH CROSS, 2ND EIDGA, BANNIMANTAP MYSURU - 570015

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. WALIM KHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560001.

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE MYSURU - 570010

¶16

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER NARASIMHARAJA POLICE STATION MYSURU - 570007

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP)

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REMOVE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER

¶20

¶21

NC: 2023:KHC:40626 WP No. 1524 of 2023

¶22

FROM THE REGISTER OF ROWDIES MAINTAINED IN NARASIMHARAJA POLICE STATION, MYSURU. DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO INTERFERE WITH THE PEACEFUL LIVING OF THE PETITIONER BY FREQUENTLY AND UNNECESSARILY CALLING UPON HIM TO PRESENT IN THE NARASIMHARAJA POLICE STATION, MYSURU.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to remove the name of the petitioner from the Register of Rowdies maintained in Narasimharaja Police Station, Mysuru.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel Sri.Walim Khan, appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader Sri.Shamanth Naik, appearing for the respondents.

¶27

The petitioner gets embroiled in two cases. One in C.C.No.858/2015 and the other C.C.No.2401/2015 for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 435 of IPC respectively. Those two cases have ended in an order of acquittal in favour of the petitioner by the orders of the competent Court on 30.08.2016 and 25.10.2017.

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:40626 WP No. 1524 of 2023

¶29

At the time when the petitioner got embroiled in the

¶30

aforesaid cases, the name of the petitioner was reflected in the Rowdy Register maintained at the jurisdictional Police i.e. Narasimharaja Police Station, Mysuru. Despite the acquittal about 6 years ago, the representation of the petitioner for removal of his name from the rowdy register has not yielded any consideration. It is therefore the petitioner has knocked at the doors of this Court in the subject petition.

¶31

The maintenance of rowdies in the list and its removal need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter, as the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of B.S.Prakash vs. The State of Karnataka and others in

¶32

W.P.No.4504/2021 disposed on 22.04.2022 has laid down certain guidelines. The guidelines read as follows:

¶33

GUIDELINES FOR ROWDY/HISTORY SHEETING:

¶34

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.

¶35

ii. A brief proposal notice shall be sent to the individual concerned in a sealed cover with an option to submit his representation within

¶36

¶37

NC: 2023:KHC:40626 WP No. 1524 of 2023

¶38

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.

¶39

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 record his reasons for according the approval and mark a copy thereof to the individual lforthwith, with a mention that he may petition the Police Complaints Authority, against the same.

¶40

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.57

¶41

¶42

The representation for review shall be considered by the jurisdictional Police at the initial level within a period of30 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 jurisdictiona lSuperintendent of Police or the Sub – Divisional Police Officer, within 15 days along with the representation &the

¶43

¶44

NC: 2023:KHC:40626 WP No. 1524 of 2023

¶45

material collected thereon. Such recommendation along with the result of consideration of the representation shall be communicated to the individual lconcerned within next 15 days.

¶46

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.

¶47

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.

¶48

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.

¶49

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."

¶50

¶51

NC: 2023:KHC:40626 WP No. 1524 of 2023

¶52

In the light of the guidelines so laid down, it is now necessary for respondent No.2 to consider the plea of the petitioner for removal of his name from the list of rowdies, in terms of the guidelines so laid down by this Court (Supra).

¶53

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

i) Writ petition is disposed.

¶56

ii) A mandamus issues to respondent No.2 to consider the removal of the name of the petitioner from the list of rowdies strictly in consonance with the guidelines so laid down by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Supra).

¶57

iii) The action shall be taken, within 12 weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of this Order, if not earlier.

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

¶60

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

Mubarak Ali v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mubarak Ali 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

District Supply and Vs the Deputy Director

Smt. Priyanka R Vs Union of India

Mr Shashikumar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Chandrashekar D Vs Smt Saritha

Sri Hariraj Shetty Vs the Public Information Officer and Under Secretary

Anekal and Bangalore South Taluk Mahila Supplementary Nutrition Production Centre Vs the State of Karnataka