Nagaraj Alias Nagappa S/O Kareppa Karennavar Vs the Commissioner of Police

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1622 WP No. 100409 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.100409 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

NAGARAJ @ NAGAPPA S/O. KAREPPA KARENNAVAR, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: JOURNALIST, R/O: PLOT NO. 18, 3^RD CROSS, BRAHMA CHAITANYA PARK, DODDANAYAKANAKOPPA, DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD – 580 007.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, HUBLI-DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD – 580 007.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE DHARWAD TOWN SUB DIVISION, DIST: DHARWAD – 580 007.

¶15

POLICE INSPECTOR, TOWN POLICE STATION, DHARWAD,

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1622 WP No. 100409 of 2025

¶18

DIST: DHARWAD – 580 007.

¶19

POLICE SUB INSPECOR, TOWN POLICE STATION, DHARWAD, DIST. DHARWAD – 580 007.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.345/2023 DATED 31.03.2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 TO DIS-CONTINUE THE ROWDY SHEET OPENED AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN NO.ACP/DH/ROWDY /1478/2020 DATED 06.09.2020 AND CLOSE THE ROWDY SHEET OPENED IN DHARWAD TOWN POLICE STATION AGAINST THE PETITIONER. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 01.10.2024 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-K.

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1622 WP No. 100409 of 2025

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

¶27

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the continuance of the name of the petitioner in the list of Rowdies maintained before the Town Police Station, Dharwad – fourth respondent herein.

¶28

Heard Shri Anil Kale, learned counsel appearing

¶29

for the petitioner and Shri Sharad V.Magadum, learned AGA appearing for the respondents.

¶30

The petitioner get embroiled in a crime in Crime No.41/2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 307 341, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. Pursuant to the registration of crime, it transpires that recommendation was made by the Town Police Station to enter the name of the petitioner in the list of Rowdies, which was accordingly done.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in terms of the order dated 21.09.2024, the concerned

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1622 WP No. 100409 of 2025

¶33

Court acquits the petitioner of the aforesaid offences in S.C. No.78/2021. The petitioner then submits a representation to the respondents to delete his name from the list of Rowdies maintained before the fourth respondent Police Station. The said representation having not met its consideration has led the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of the petitioner cannot be continued in the list of Rowdies in light of the acquittal in the crime as it was the registration of the crime is the solitary circumstance to bring the name of the petitioner in the list of Rowdies.

¶35

Learned AGA would submit that if reasonable

¶36

time is granted, the representation of the petitioner would be considered and appropriate orders would be passed.

¶37

The issue whether brining in the name of the persons in the list of Rowdies or its removal need not detain this Court longer dwell deep into the matter. The

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1622 WP No. 100409 of 2025

¶39

Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of B.S.

¶40

PRAKASH S/O. LATE SIDDAPPA VS. THE SATE OF

¶41

KARNATAKA AND OTHERS¹ disposed off on 22.04.2022 has laid down certain guidelines for brining in and removal of the persons in the list of Rowdies. The guidelines reads

¶42

as follows:

¶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

¶47

1 W.P. NO.4504/2021, DD 22.04.2022

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1622 WP No. 100409 of 2025

¶49

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.

¶50

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.

¶51

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

¶52

7 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1622 WP No. 100409 of 2025

¶54

be communicated to the individual concerned within next 15 days.

¶55

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.

¶56

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.

¶57

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.

¶58

ix. Whatever guidelines herein above laid

¶59

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1622 WP No. 100409 of 2025

¶60

down shall be applicable to the case of History Sheeters as well, mutatis mutandis and subject to the provisions of Karnataka Police Manual, 1965.”

¶61

Therefore the representation of the petitioner

¶62

shall merit consideration strictly inconsonance with what the Coordinate Bench has held as quoted supra.

¶63

The representation of the petitioner shall be considered by respondent Nos.1 and 2 within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶64

Ordered accordingly.

¶65

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶66

VNP/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46

Nagaraj Alias Nagappa S/O Kareppa Karennavar v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagaraj Alias Nagappa S/O Kareppa Karennavar v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdulgafar S/O. Chamansab Bani Vs the State of Karnataka

Kallappa S/O Beera Gawade Vs the State of Karnataka

Rohan S/O Anil Salave Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri H R Umesh S/O Virupakshappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr. Devarajan Thangadurai Vs the Karnataka Univeristy

Nirani Sugars Limited Vs Power Company of Karnataka Limited (Pckl)