Sri Shabbir Pasha Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:13206 WP No. 38007 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.38007 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.SHABBIR PASHA S/O MOHAMMED ANWAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NO.354, H.SIDDAIAH ROAD NEAR URVASHI THEATER BADA MAKAN, BENGALURU SOUTH PO: WILSON GARDEN DIST: BENGALURU-560027

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. KEMPARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY M.S.BUILDING

¶14

HOME DEPARTMENT

¶15

BENGALURU-560 001

¶16

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BENGALURU CENTRAL ZONE BENGALURU-560060

¶17

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE WILSON GARDEN POLICE STATION BENGALURU-560027

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA)

¶20

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:13206 WP No. 38007 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ROWDY SHEET OPENED BY THE R3 AGAINST THE PETITIONER UNDER VIDE ORDER FORM NO.100 ORDER AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The captioned writ petition is filed feeling aggrieved

¶27

by the complete inaction on the part of respondent No.3 in not considering the petitioner's representation dated 25.11.2025 vide Annexure-G.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA.

¶29

The petitioner’s name was included in the rowdy

¶30

sheet on account of several criminal cases having been registered against him. The petitioner has submitted a detailed representation dated 25.11.2025 addressed to respondent No.3 stating that all the criminal proceedings initiated against him have culminated in acquittal and,

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:13206 WP No. 38007 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

therefore, sought deletion of his name from the rowdy sheet.

¶34

On perusal of the material on record, it is evident that though the representation was submitted on 25.11.2025, respondent No.3 has not taken any action on the said representation. Such inaction reflects clear laxity and dereliction of duty on the part of respondent No.3, particularly when the authorities have taken cognizance of the acquittal orders passed in favour of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has a legitimate right to seek an appropriate direction from this Court, especially in the light of the guidelines laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.No.4504/2021. Therefore, this Court deems it

¶35

appropriate to extract the said guidelines, which read as follows:

¶36

" GUIDELINES FOR ROWDY/HISTORY SHEETING:

¶37

i. Before entering the name of an individual to the Register of Rowdies, the jurisdictional police shall collect and collate the material

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:13206 WP No. 38007 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

information concerning him and frame the proposal for registration on that basis.

¶42

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.

¶43

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.

¶44

iv. The jurisdictional Police shall compulsorily once in two years, undertake a periodic review

¶45

5 -

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:13206 WP No. 38007 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

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.

¶49

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.

¶50

6 -

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:13206 WP No. 38007 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

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.

¶54

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.

¶55

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

¶56

7 -

¶57

NC: 2026:KHC:13206 WP No. 38007 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

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.

¶60

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."

¶61

In the light of the guidelines laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench in the above said writ petition, this Court is of the view that respondent No.3 is obligated to decide the petitioner's representation strictly adhering to the above said guidelines.

¶62

For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following;

¶63

ORDER

¶64

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶65

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:13206 WP No. 38007 of 2025

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

(ii) Respondent No.3 is hereby directed to forthwith pass appropriate orders on the representation dated 25.11.2025 submitted by the petitioner vide Annexure-G strictly adhering to the guidelines laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench in the judgment cited supra.

¶68

(iii) This exercise shall be accomplished within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of order copy.

¶69

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶70

NBM

¶71

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Sri Shabbir Pasha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shabbir Pasha 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

Smt.M. Nagarathna Vs Smt Divya M P

Puttaraju. C Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Manjunatha Sports and Cultural Association Vs State of Karnataka

Nadeem Pasha Vs the Passport Officer

M/S. Radhe Labs Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Varalakshmi Vs the Sub Registrar