Allowed

M Gangi Reddy v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Dec 2023WP/20335/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking mandamus directing the Superintendent of Police to consider a representation filed by the petitioner requesting removal from rowdy sheet, noting his age and acquittal in a related case.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.3 is directed to consider the representation at Annexure-E dated 06.07.2023 within six weeks and afford hearing opportunity if an adverse order is passed.

M Gangi Reddy Vs State of Karnataka — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:45861 WP No. 20335 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶6

WRIT PETITION No. 20335 OF 2023 (GM-POLICE)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M. GANGI REDDY, S/O M. MUNIVENKATA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO.1-16, PADIGALA KUPPAM, VENKATARIRIKOTA, CHITTOR, ANDRAPRADESH, PIN-517424.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI HEMANTHA B., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ROBERTSONPET POLICE STATION, Digitally signed KGF, BANGARPET TALUK, by VINUTHA B REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, S HIGH COURT BUILDING, Location: High Court of BENGALURU-560001. Karnataka

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KYSAMBALLI POLICE STATION, KGF, BANGARPET TALUK, REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU -560001.

¶14

SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, K. G. F., KOLAR DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶15

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:45861 WP No. 20335 of 2023

¶16

HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU -560001.

¶17

THE SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF KARNATAKA VIDHANASOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 06.07.2023 AS PER ANNEXURE-E.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This petition is filed seeking mandamus to consider the representation at Annexure-E, dated 06.07.2023.

¶24

The petitioner submits that he is an agriculturist. He was falsely implicated in a criminal case in Crime No.48/2016 for the alleged offences under Sections 302, 120B read with 34 of IPC. He was acquitted from the alleged offences by order dated 04.03.2017 in S.C.No.99/2016. During the pendency of

¶25

the above case, respondent No.2-Police without enquiring opened Rowdy Sheet against the petitioner. The petitioner is

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:45861 WP No. 20335 of 2023

¶27

not involved in any criminal activities and now he is aged 60 years. In view of continuation of the petitioner as rowdy sheeter, he has been called by respondent-Police time and again and the same is causing inconvenience and hardship to him.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner is not involved in any criminal case except S.C.No.99/2016 wherein he was acquitted, continuing the petitioner as a rowdy sheeter at the age of 60 years is incorrect and unlawful. On the above submission seeks direction to respondent No.3 to consider the representation dated 06.07.2023 at Annexure-E.

¶29

Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the representation dated 06.07.2023 would be considered in accordance with law subject to directions of this Court.

¶30

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not involved in any criminal activities, he is carrying on agricultural activities and is aged 60 years, respondent No.3 is to be directed to consider the representation at Annexure-E. Hence, the following;

¶31

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:45861 WP No. 20335 of 2023

¶32

Order

¶33

i) Writ petition is allowed.

¶34

ii) Respondent No.3 is directed to consider the representation at Annexure-E, dated 06.07.2023 within a period of six weeks from today on receipt of copy of this order.

¶35

Needless to observe that, if adverse any order is to passed, petitioner be extended the opportunity of hearing.

¶36

iii) No costs.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

M Gangi Reddy v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Gangi Reddy v. 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

M/S Sri Maruthi Builders Engineers and Contractors Vs South Western Railways

Sri Tirumalesh Desai Vs Primary Agricultural Co. Operative Society Ltd.

S Chidananda Vs State of Karnataka

Manappuram Finance Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. S P Chidanand Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs Luviza Vs the Assistant Commissioner