Disposed

H R Mahesh v. State by Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Nov 2024WP/6859/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought deletion of his name from the rowdy register. Since no representation had been submitted to the authorities, the court disposed of the petition, reserving liberty to file a representation and directing consideration per coordinate Bench guidelines on rowdy/history sheeting.

What the court decided

AI extract

H R Mahesh Vs State by Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:44282 WP No. 6859 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 6859 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

H.R. MAHESH S/O RAJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESIDIGN AT NO. 9/1, 5^TH MAIN AGRAHARA, DASARA HALLI BANGALORE-562 114.

¶9

ALSO RESIDING AT:

¶10

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

H.R. MAHESH S/O RAJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 37 YARS HANUMANAHALLI VILLAGE BINDIGANAVILE HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA-571 426.

¶12

(BY SRI. RAJU C.N., ADVOCATE)

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

AND:

¶15

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

¶16

THE SUPERDIENT OF POLICE MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA-560 009.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:44282 WP No. 6859 of 2024

¶19

THE POLICE INSPECTOR KRISHNARAJPET TOWN POLICE KRISHNARAJPETE TALUK MANDYA-571 426.

¶20

THE DEPUTY SUPERDIENT OF POLICE NAGAMANGALA SUB-DIVISION NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA-571432.

¶21

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER BINDIGENAVILE POLICE NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA-562 135.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

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

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-5 TO DELETE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE ROWDY REGISTRAR AND QUASH THE VIDE ANNEXURE-A DATED 08.01.2021 AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioner is seeking for a directive to the respondents to delete his name in the list of rowdies.

¶28

The learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents - State upon receiving instructions submits that the petitioner has not submitted representation seeking for deletion of his name.

¶29

In view of the said submission, the petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to submit a

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:44282 WP No. 6859 of 2024

¶31

representation with the respondents for deletion of his name in the list of rowdies, and if such representation is submitted, the respondents are directed to consider the same in light of the guidelines issued by a coordinate Bench of this Court in WP No.4504/2021 and connected matters (DD 22.4.2022) dealing with the registration of names in the rowdy registers has issued the following guidelines:

¶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

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.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:44282 WP No. 6859 of 2024

¶38

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.

¶39

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

¶40

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.

¶41

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

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:44282 WP No. 6859 of 2024

¶44

Right To Information (RTI) application shall be entertained in this regard.

¶45

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.

¶46

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.

¶47

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶48

BKM

H R Mahesh v. State by Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

H R Mahesh v. State by Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

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.

B M Jayanth Vs State by Karnataka

Smt. Tanuja Monnappa Vs the Authorized Officer/Manager

B.A. Shailesh Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka