Disposed

Sri.C.T. Ponnappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Nov 2023WP/24036/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the Court disposed of a petition seeking removal of the petitioner's name from the Rowdy Register. The Court directed respondents to consider the representation in accordance with copious guidelines and pass orders within two months.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; respondents directed to consider petitioner's representation and pass orders according to law within two months.

Sri.C.T. Ponnappa Vs State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:42137 WP No. 24036 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 24036 OF 2023 (GM-POLICE)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI.C.T. PONNAPPA S/O LATE C.G. THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT B. KANANKAD ESTATE, BADAGA BANANGALA VILLAGE, PALIBETTA, MADIKERI TALUK AND DISTRICT-571253

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. SRINIVASA D C., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

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

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶12

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE MADIKERI, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 201

¶13

THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE MADIKERI SUB-DIVISION, MADIKERI, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 201

¶14

THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SIDDAPURA POLICE STATION, M.G.ROAD, VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 253.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:42137 WP No. 24036 of 2023

¶17

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE SIDDAPURA POLICE STATION, M.G.ROAD, VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571253

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP)

¶20

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 FROM THE ROWDY REGISTER OF THE R-5 POLICE STATION AND CONSEQUENTLY TO REMOVE THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PETITIONER ON THE NOTICE BOARD OF THE R-5 POLICE STATION AS ILLEGAL, VOID AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY APPROPRIATE COMPENSATION TO THE PETITIONER FOR UNLAWFUL ENTRY OF HIS NAME IN THE ROWDY REGISTER AND FOR UNLAWFUL EXHIBITION OF HIS PHOTOGRAPH AT R-5 POLICE STATION.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the

¶24

following prayer:

¶25

" PRAYER

¶26

Wherefore, the petitioner most respectfully prays that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to:

¶27

a) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to remove the name of the petitioner from the 'Rowdy Register' of the respondent No.5 police station and consequently to remove the

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:42137 WP No. 24036 of 2023

¶29

photograph of the petitioner on the notice board of the respondent No.5 police station as illegal, void and unconstitutional.

¶30

b) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay appropriate compensation to the petitioner for unlawful entry of his name in the 'Rowdy Register' and for unlawful exhibition of his photograph at respondent No.5 police station.

¶31

c) Issue any other writ or direction for which the petitioner is entitled to under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶32

The petitioner is an accused in two Crimes. One which is in S.C.No.90/1996 for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The petitioner gets acquitted on 20.07.2004. After about 17 years, comes the second crime in

¶33

Crime No.32/2021 for offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 and 307 of IPC and Sections 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959. The said crime is pending investigation at the hands of the respondent - Police. What has driven the petitioner to this Court now is the name of the petitioner being enlisted in

¶34

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:42137 WP No. 24036 of 2023

¶35

the list of rowdies maintained before the Siddapura Police Station of Virajpet Taluk.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the crime in which he is an accused registered in Crime No.32/2021, it is still pending, filing of a final report, though three years have passed and the other crime he has been acquitted. Therefore, there is no warrant for keeping the name of the petitioner in the list of rowdies. He would rely upon the orders passed under the Police Manual.

¶37

Learned HCGP would submit that the representation of the petitioner would be considered and appropriate orders would be passed strictly in consonance with the guidelines laid down by the co-ordinate Bench in the case of B.S.Prakash vs.

¶38

The State of Karnataka and others in W.P.No.4504/2021 disposed on 22.04.2022.

¶39

The submission is placed on record.

¶40

The guidelines laid down by the co-ordinate Bench

¶41

(Supra) has held as follows:

¶42

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:42137 WP No. 24036 of 2023

¶43

GUIDELINES FOR ROWDY/HISTORY SHEETING:

¶44

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.

¶45

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.

¶46

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 forthwith, with a mention that he may petition the Police Complaints Authority, against the same.

¶47

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

¶48

v. 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 jurisdictional Superintendent of Police or the Sub – Divisional

¶49

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:42137 WP No. 24036 of 2023

¶50

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.

¶51

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.

¶52

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.

¶53

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.

¶54

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."

¶55

The representation of the petitioner shall merit consideration in strict consonance with the guidelines laid down

¶56

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:42137 WP No. 24036 of 2023

¶57

by the co-ordinate Bench as extracted (Supra) and orders would be passed in accordance with law, within two months from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order, by the third respondent - Deputy Superintendent of Police, Madikeri Sub-Division, Madikeri.

¶58

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands

disposed.

Sd/JUDGE

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

Sri.C.T. Ponnappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.C.T. Ponnappa 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Authorised Officer Vs M/S Aishwarya Heights Infra Private Limited

Smt Ranjitha @ Yamuna Vs Sri Rajesh

M/S Saravana Build Well Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bank of Maharastra

Gagan Baderiya Vs Union of India

Sri. Mohammed Ethnasham Ui Haq Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Nagaraju M N Vs Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd.