Allowed¶49

Sri S. Krishna v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Jun 2026WP/24247/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rowdy sheet deletion; rowdy list removal; Ulsoor Gate Police Station; Bangalore City police; 20 disposed proceedings (1995-96 to 2014); acquittal; no pending cases; reformist object of criminal jurisprudence; writ of mandamus; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; WP No. 24247 of 2025 (GM-POLICE); Karnataka High Court 2026; Justice Suraj Govindaraj; 4-week compliance direction.

What did the court decide?

Deletion of the petitioner's name from the rowdy list at Ulsoor Gate Police Station, to be carried out within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. ¶49

Sri S. Krishna Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Deletion of the petitioner's name from the rowdy list at Ulsoor Gate Police Station, to be carried out within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's name should be removed from the rowdy list maintained at the Fourth Respondent station, Ulsoor Gate Police Station, by considering Annexure-A dated 21.07.2025. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

Where a citizen has been acquitted in proceedings and no other proceedings have been initiated against him for a reasonable period of time thereafter, his name should be deleted from the rowdy sheet.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

Continuance of a citizen's name in the rowdy sheet is contrary to the reformist principle of criminal jurisprudence and does not permit the citizen to reform.

¶40

Key takeaways

Out of the 20 matters listed against the petitioner, no proceedings are pending as on today; all have been disposed, the last disposal being in the year 2014, so nothing requires the rowdy sheet to be kept alive.ratio¶39
Since the last complaint against the petitioner was filed in 2012 and the last order was passed in 2014, with no other proceedings pending from that day, the rowdy sheet need not be kept alive.ratio¶41
Writ petition allowed; the respondents are directed to remove the petitioner's name from the rowdy list within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru (Suraj Govindaraj J., order dated 17-06-2026), Writ Petition No. 24247 of 2025 (GM-POLICE) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India: Allowed. The petitioner, whose name figured in the rowdy sheet of Ulsoor Gate Police Station, was shown, via a memo filed by learned AGA on 10.02.2026, to have 20 proceedings initiated from 1995-96 onwards (and later in 2005, 2008 etc.), most ending in acquittal, a couple in conviction and sentence, none pending, the last disposal being in 2014 and the last complaint filed in 2012. Holding that the object of criminal jurisprudence is the reform of criminals or alleged criminals, that on acquittal and a reasonable crime-free period thereafter a citizen's name should be deleted from the rowdy sheet, and that continuance of the name therein is contrary to the reformist principle and prevents reform, the Court directed the respondents to remove the petitioner's name from the rowdy list within 4 weeks of receipt of copy of the order.

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:29541 WP No. 24247 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 24247 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI S. KRISHNA S/O LATE SEETHA RAM AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS NO 14/1, AJRUNAPPA PAPANNA STREET THIGALARAPET BANGALORE -560 002

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI: NARENDRA BABU B.K, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BANGALORE CITY INFANTRY ROAD BANGALORE-560 001

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BANGALORE CENTRAL DIVISION NO 8, KASTURBA ROAD NEAR YES BANK SHANTALA NAGAR ASHOK NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 001

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:29541 WP No. 24247 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

INSPECTOR OF POLICE ULSOOR GATE POLICE STATION CORPORATION CIRCLE BANGALORE-560 002

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI: C H DEVARAJ, GOVT. ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO REMOVE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER FORM ROWDY LIST, FROM THE FOURTH RESPONDENT STATION, ULSOOR GATE POLICE STATION BY CONSIDERING ANNEXURE-A DATED 21.07.25; DIRECTIONS TO THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO CALL THE PETITIONER TO STATION, WITHOUT ANY REASON.

¶23

THIS WP, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following

¶27

reliefs:

¶28

a) To issue writ of mandamus, directing the Respondents to remove the name of the petitioner from ROWDY LIST, from the Fourth Respondent station i.e., Ulsoor Gate Police Station, by considering Annexure 'A; dated 21.07.2025.

¶29

b) To issue directions to the Respondents not to call the petitioner to station, without any reason.

¶30

c) To issue such other writs or directions which may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:29541 WP No. 24247 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

The grievance of the petitioner is that rowdy sheet has been opened in respect of the petitioner by the respondent - police. When there are no proceedings which are pending against the petitioner, despite the request made by the petitioner to delete the name of the petitioner from the rowdy list, it has not been done and it is in that background, the aforesaid reliefs has been sought for.

¶34

Learned AGA was called upon to place on record the proceedings which are filed and pending or disposed against the petitioner.

¶35

A memo has been filed on 10.02.2026, enclosing a list of 20 matters. Perusal of the said list indicates that these are proceedings which had been initiated in the year 1995-96, 1997-98 and some of them a little while later in 2005 and 2008 etc.,

¶36

Perusal of the same indicates that the earliest matters were of the year 1995-96. However, what is important to be noticed is that most of those proceedings have ended in an acquittal of the petitioner, though a couple of them

¶37

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:29541 WP No. 24247 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

have ended in the petitioner being convicted and sentenced. The fact, however, remains that out of the said 20 matters, no proceedings are pending as on today. All the proceedings have been disposed, the last of the disposal being in the year 2014. Apart from these 20 proceedings, there are no other proceedings which have been initiated against the petitioner and subsequent to 2014, there is no proceeding pending against the petitioner.

¶40

Such being the case, the object of Criminal jurisprudence being the reform of criminals or alleged criminals, it is but, required that on acquittal in proceedings and thereafter for the reasonable period of time, there is no other proceedings initiated against the citizen of the country, their names should be deleted from the rowdy sheet. The continuance of the names of the citizen in the rowdy sheet is contrary to the reformist principle and it will not permit the citizen to reform.

¶41

In the present matter, the last of the complaint has been filed against the petitioner is in the year 2012. The last order being passed is in the year 2014. There are no

¶42

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:29541 WP No. 24247 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

other proceedings pending against the petitioner from

¶46

that day requiring the rowdy sheet to be kept alive.

¶47

As such, I pass the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

i) Writ Petition is allowed.

¶50

ii) The respondents are directed to remove the name of the petitioner from the rowdy list within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶51

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶52

BGN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50

Sri S. Krishna v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S. Krishna v. 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Gangadharappa Munindra Kumar @ G M Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Master M. Devanka Reddy @ Divanka Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Jayanna Vs the Head Master

Sri Ganesh Naika Vs the State by

Sri Kempanna Vs Karnataka Examination Authority

Sri Mi Soans Vs the State of Karnataka