Irfan S/O Abdul Hamid Shaikh Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE AN ORDER IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CLOSE THE ROWDY-SHEET OPENED AGAINST HIM, AND TERMINATE ALL CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-B,B1 TO B3 DATED 18/09/2024 AND 01/08/2024 & ETC.

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10853 WP No. 101808 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

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

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)

¶26

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶27

1. Issue an order in the nature of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to close the rowdy-sheet opened against him, and terminate all consequential proceedings against the Petitioner vide Annexure-B,B1 to B3 dated 18/09/2024 and 01/08/2024.

¶28

2. Issue any other order or direction that this Hon’ble Court may in the light of the facts and circumstances narrated above may deem fit and proper, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶29

The petitioner claims to be a private businessman who has been falsely implicated in criminal cases, and as a result, his name has been registered in the rowdy register maintained by Respondent No. 2. A representation was submitted by the petitioner on 01/08/2024 to remove his name, which was rejected

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10853 WP No. 101808 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

by the Respondent on 18/09/2024 in Annexure-B. It is against this rejection that the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶33

Shri. Vishal Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that though the petitioner has been implicated in four criminal proceedings, three of them have resulted in acquittals after the completion of trial, and only one proceeding is pending. Therefore, as only one proceeding is pending, the requisite number of matters for entering the name of the petitioner in the rowdy register, which is three, has not been met. The petitioner’s name should have been deleted from the rowdy register.

¶34

Sri. Sharad V. Magadum, learned AGA for the respondents, contends that the petitioner, having been involved in several crimes, namely Dharwad Vidyagiri P.S. Crime No. 55/2017, Dharwad Town P.S. Crime No. 17/2015, Neloogi P.S. Crime No. 18/2020,

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10853 WP No. 101808 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

and Dharwad Vidyagiri P.S. Crime No. 164/2024, is a regular offender, and for this reason, his name has been added to the rowdy register maintained by Respondent No. 2. His submission is that when all four proceedings are considered together, the minimum requirement of three proceedings for opening a rowdy sheet in respect of any person has been met. Hence, the rejection of the representation made by the petitioner is proper and correct.

¶38

Heard Sri. Vishal Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Sharad V. Magadum, learned AGA for the Respondents and perused the papers.

¶39

The points that would arise for consideration in the present case are:

¶40

i. Whether proceedings in which a citizen has been acquitted can be taken into consideration for determining the minimum number of qualifications required for opening the rowdy sheet in respect of a citizen?

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10853 WP No. 101808 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

ii. Whether, in the present case, the requirement has been met?

¶44

iii. What order?

¶45

I answer the above points as under :

¶46

Answer to point No. i : Whether proceedings in which a citizen has been acquitted can be taken into consideration for determining the minimum number of qualifications required for opening the rowdy sheet in respect of a citizen?

¶47

8.1. Rule 1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual is

¶48

reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

¶49

” 1059. (1) A rowdy may be defined as a goonda and includes a hooligan, tough, vagabond, or any person who is dangerous to the public peace and tranquility.

¶50

(2) The main forms of rowdyism are:

¶51

(a) Passing indecent remarks at women and school and college girls;

¶52

(b) Intimidation of law-abiding people by acts of violence or by show of force or by abusive language;

¶53

(c) Forcible collection of subscription;

¶54

6 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10853 WP No. 101808 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

(d) Taking sides in petty quarrels between landlords and tenants or between co-tenants and threatening people of the opposite party;

¶58

(e)Disorderly conduct;

¶59

(f) Rioting; and

¶60

(g) Snatching and committing robbery.”

¶61

8.2. Under Rule 1059 (1) of the Karnataka Police

¶62

Manual, a rowdy is defined as a goonda and includes a hooligan, tough, vagabond, or any person who is dangerous to public peace and tranquillity. Rule 1059 (2) of the Karnataka Police Manual deals with the forms of rowdyism.

¶63

8.3. In B.S. Prakash V/s. State of Karnataka and

¶64

others, reported in 2022(2) KAR LR.457 , it laid down the procedure to be followed for a person to be considered for inclusion in the rowdy register in terms of Rule 1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual.

¶65

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10853 WP No. 101808 of 2025

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

8.4. What is required to be considered, in my

¶68

considered opinion, is the implication of a person in any particular crime, if the proceedings are pending. However, once the proceedings have come to an end and an acquittal order has been passed, the acquittal would lead to a situation where, as if the proceedings had never been initiated against the accused. This is because, in any criminal proceeding, a citizen is initially shown as an accused and is presumed to be innocent until proven to be guilty, and only after the culmination of the proceedings can that person be either acquitted or convicted. Therefore, the cases filed must be considered only if they are pending or if there has been a conviction in those matters. If there has been an acquittal, such an acquittal would suggest that the person was not guilty of the alleged offenses. Hence, any case in which a person has been

¶69

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10853 WP No. 101808 of 2025

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

acquitted cannot be taken into consideration for determining whether a person is habitually involved in criminal offences warranting the inclusion of his name in the rowdy register in terms of Rule 1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual.

¶72

8.5. Therefore, I answer point no.1 by holding that it is only pending criminal matters and/or matters in which a person has been convicted that can be taken into consideration for determining whether a person is a habitual offender. Matters where a

¶73

person has been acquitted must be excluded and cannot be considered.

¶74

Answer to point No. ii: Whether, in the present case, the requirement has been met?

¶75

9.1. In the present matter, though learned AGA has contended that Dharwad Vidyagiri P.S. Crime No. 55/2017, Dharwad Town P.S. Crime No. 17/2015, Neloogi P.S. Crime No. 18/2020 were

¶76

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10853 WP No. 101808 of 2025

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

registered against the petitioner, it is undisputed that in respect of Crime Nos. 55/2017, 17/2015, and 18/2020, the petitioner has been acquitted. It is only Crime No. 164 of 2024 that is pending against the petitioner. In this situation, the proceedings in which the petitioner has been acquitted cannot be taken into consideration for determining the minimum requirement under Rule 1059.

¶79

9.2. Hence, I answer point No. ii by holding that the Respondents have wrongly rejected the petitioner’s representation. The Respondents should not have considered the cases where the petitioner had been acquitted.

¶80

10. Answer to Point No. iii: What order?

¶81

10.1. In view of my findings on points no. i and ii above, I pass the following:

¶82

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10853 WP No. 101808 of 2025

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

ORDER

¶85

i) The writ petition is allowed .

¶86

ii) Mandamus is issued directing the respondents to close the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner and terminate all consequential proceedings initiated against the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶87

iii) Liberty is reserved to the Respondents to include the petitioner’s name in the rowdy register if the petitioner satisfies the requirements laid down by Sri.B.S.Prakash ’s case.

¶88

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶89

VB/CT-VP/LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 47

Irfan S/O Abdul Hamid Shaikh v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irfan S/O Abdul Hamid Shaikh v. the State of Karnataka

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

Bhagwan Bahubali Alpasankhaytara Sansthe Vs Mr.Shrikant S/O Parappa Chippadi

K Gopal Raju Vs the State of Karnataka

Hanumanth S/O. Goolappa Kuri Vs the Divisional Controller

Smt. Arpita P W/O Late Chalavadi Maruti Vs the State of Karnataka

Roddappa Yallappa Chalawadi, Vs the State of Karnataka

Krishna S/O. Sri. Sukhadev Kamble Vs the Deputy Commissioner /