Allowed

B M Jayanth v. State by Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Nov 2024WP/16263/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged his entry in the rowdy register, made without the proposal notice mandated by the Court's earlier guidelines on rowdy sheeting. The Court found the entry breached those guidelines, quashed the impugned order, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration after notice.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 02.05.2024 drawing petitioner's name in rowdy list quashed; matter remitted for reconsideration with proposal notice.

B M Jayanth Vs State by Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:44380 WP No. 16263 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 16263 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

B M JAYANTH S/O MUNIKADRIPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT BIDALAPURA VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE PIN CODE-562 129.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. RAJU C N., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE BY KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME VIDHANASOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 009.

¶12

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

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE INFINITARY ROAD BANGALORE-560 009.

¶14

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE J S MILLERS ROAD, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALORE-560 046.

¶15

STATION HOUSE OFFICER CHANNARAYAPATNA POLICE, BENGALORE, RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALORE-562 135.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. K P YOGANNA., ADVOCATE)

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:44380 WP No. 16263 of 2024

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO DELETE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE ROWDY REGISTRAR AND QUASH THE VIDE ANNEXURE A ORDER NO.A4/PS/RTI/19/2024 DTD 02.05.2024.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for a directive to the petitioner seeks deletion of his name from the rowdy register. His name was entered in the list of rowdies on the grounds that a criminal case was registered against him under Crime No. 65/2021 for offenses punishable under Sections 447, 427, 323, 354, 504, and 506, read with Section 34 of the IPC. In this case, the petitioner’s brother was also implicated as an accused, and he approached this Court in W.P. No. 26457/2023, seeking a direction to delete his name from the rowdy list. By an order dated 16.2.2024, this Court quashed the order placing the petitioner’s brother in the rowdy list and directed its deletion.

¶23

A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in W.P. No. 4504/2021, disposed of on 22.04.2022, has established certain guidelines regarding the inclusion of individuals in the rowdy register and the process for their removal. The guidelines laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench are as follows:

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:44380 WP No. 16263 of 2024

¶25

"GUIDELINES FOR ROWDY/HISTORY SHEETING:

¶26

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.

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

v) The representation for review shall be considered by the jurisdictional Police at the initial level within a period of 30 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 Police Officer, within 15 days along with the representation & the material collected thereon. Such recommendation along

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:44380 WP No. 16263 of 2024

¶32

with the result of consideration of the representation shall be communicated to the individual concerned within next 15 days.

¶33

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.

¶34

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.

¶35

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.

¶36

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."

¶37

(Emphasis supplied)

¶38

The guideline No.(ii) deals with brief notice to be issued to a person whose name is to be drawn in the list of rowdies. The Co-ordinate Bench observes that a brief proposal notice should be issued. Admittedly, in the case at hand, no such compliance with the direction of the Co-ordinate Bench is made by the third respondent-the jurisdictional police prior to drawing of the name of the petitioner in the list of rowdies.

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:44380 WP No. 16263 of 2024

¶40

Therefore, in the light of breach of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench, the matter requires to be reconsidered at the hands of the second respondent. The Deputy Superintendent of Police shall issue a notice to the petitioner and consider the reply submitted by the petitioner if any and then seek drawing of the name of the petitioner or continuing his name in the list of rowdies."

¶41

In light of the above, the name of the petitioner being drawn in the list of rowdies will have to be quashed as it is rendered unsustainable, and further continuing his name is contrary to the guidelines issued by this Court in WP No.4504/2021 (supra).

¶42

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

i) The petition is allowed.

¶45

ii) The impugned order dated 2.5.2024 by which the name of the petitioner is drawn in the list of rowdies stands quashed and the matter is remitted back at the hands of the competent authority to issue a brief proposal notice to the petitioner as directed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court (supra), permit him to furnish his reply and then pass appropriate orders in accordance with law either drawing of the name of the petitioner in the list of rowdies or otherwise.

¶46

Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶47

BKM

B M Jayanth v. State by Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B M Jayanth v. State by 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

Mrs. Anthoniamma Vs Union Bank of India

Mr Ravishankar Panchaksharaiah Vs Union Bank

Dr H M Shashikala Vs M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

H R Mahesh Vs State by Karnataka

Smt. Tanuja Monnappa Vs the Authorized Officer/Manager

B.A. Shailesh Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka