Allowed

Shrikara K M v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Dec 2024WP/16728/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the petitioner's registration on a rowdy sheet for violating writ guidelines regarding opportunity of hearing. The single-judge High Court of Karnataka quashed the registration, directing police to close the rowdy sheet within ten days due to procedural lapses and pending criminal investigation.

What did the court decide?

Rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner is quashed. Respondents 3, 4, and 5 directed to close the rowdy sheet within ten days.

Shrikara K M Vs the State of Karnataka — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:50340 WP No. 16728 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 16728 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SHRIKARA K.M, S/O MONAPPA GOWDA, AGED 28 YEARS, KAMPA HOUSE, BUNTRA VILLAGE, MARDALA POST, KADABA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574 230.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR M, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶12

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

¶13

THE DG AND IGP, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DAKSHINA KANNADA, PANDESHWAR ROAD, PANDESHWAR, MANGALURU - 575 001.

¶15

THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KADABA SUB DIVISION, PUTTUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:50340 WP No. 16728 of 2024

¶18

5. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADABA POLICE STATION, KADABA, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. K.P. YOGANNA, AGA)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I) QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ROWDY SHEET OPENED BY THE RESPONDENT NO 5 AGAINST THE PETITIONER, HOLDING THAT IT VOILATIVE OF THE CONDITIONS ENUMERATED IN WP NO 4504/2021 DATED 22/04/2022 AND ETC.,

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner is facing investigation for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 153A, 323, 354, 504, 506, 149 of IPC in Crime No.29 of 2024 registered by Kadaba Police Station, Uppinangady Circle, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada District and consequently, the petitioner's name was registered in rowdy list as per order 1059 of the Karnataka Police manual.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before registering the petitioner’s name in the rowdy list, the petitioner was not provided with an opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the registration of the petitioner’s name in the rowdy list

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:50340 WP No. 16728 of 2024

¶28

is contrary to the guidelines issued by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.4504 of 2021 and connected petitions.

¶29

The learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the petitioner is facing charges involving criminal consequences and therefore, the registration of the petitioner’s name in the rowdy list is justified.

¶30

The arguments of the learned counsel for the respective parties have been duly considered.

¶31

The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.4504 of 2021 and connected petitions has laid down the Guidelines for rowdy/history sheeting which reads as follows:

¶32

Guidelines for Rowdy/History Sheeting

¶33

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.

¶34

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.

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:50340 WP No. 16728 of 2024

¶36

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 the 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.

¶37

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 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.

¶38

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 SubDivisional Police Officer, within 15 days along with the representation and the material collected thereon. Such recommendation along with the result of consideration of the representation shall be

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:50340 WP No. 16728 of 2024

¶41

communicated to the individual concerned within next 15 days.

¶42

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.

¶43

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.

¶44

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.

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:50340 WP No. 16728 of 2024

¶47

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.

¶48

In the instance, the name of the petitioner was registered in gross violation of the Guidelines issued by this Court and, also the petitioner is facing criminal prosecution arising out of matrimonial dispute. Although the crime was registered in the year 2023, the Investigation Officer has not submitted the charge-sheet as of today. Therefore, the registration of the name of the petitioner in the rowdy list requires to be quashed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed .

¶49

The Respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 are hereby directed to close the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner within ten (10) days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Liberty is reserved to the said respondents to list the name of the petitioner in the rowdy list, if permissible, after following the Guidelines issued by this Court.

¶50

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶51

DH CT: BHK

Shrikara K M v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shrikara K M 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

Hanumantha Mogaveera Vs the State of Karnataka

Harin Kumar Hp Vs Union of India

Sri B v Amarnath Gupta Vs the Branch Manager

Victory Sports and Cultural Association Club Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri S a Veerabhadra Prasad Vs the Commissioner of Endowments

Sri. T. R. Vishnumurthy Vs Union Bank of India