AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner herein claims to be an Advocate Clerk at Thiruvananthapuram against whom false criminal cases were foisted by the former ruling dispensation due to political animosity. The main relief sought for in this writ petition is a direction to respondents 1 to 5 to remove the name of the petitioner from the Rowdy History Sheet of Pettah Police Station in Thiruvananthapuram District. The other reliefs are monetary compensation to the tune of 10 Million Dollars and a direction for appropriate departmental proceedings against the police officers who caused the name of the petitioner entered into the Rowdy History Sheet.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader representing the State of Kerala.
As per the directions of this Court, the Inspector of Police, Pettah Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram City, filed a statement in which it is stated that the petitioner had been involved in seven criminal cases. Out of the above seven cases, he was acquitted in two cases and convicted in four cases. In the remaining one case, the Police is said to have filed a refer charge. Out of the four cases in which the petitioner has been convicted, three of them relate to the commission of offence under section 118(a) of the Kerala Police Act and the remaining one under sections 279, 337 and 338 I.P.C. All the three cases relating to the aforesaid conviction under section 118(a) of the Kerala Police Act were registered at the Pettah Police Station. Two of such convictions were in the month of November, 2018 and the remaining one in the month of August 2023. The sentence awarded in all the four cases where the petitioner had been convicted is said to be fine alone.
The provisions regarding the maintenance of Rowdy History Sheet are contained in the Kerala Police Manual. Paragraph No.259 of the Kerala Police Manual reads as follows:-
“259. Station Crime History Part VI (Rowdy History Sheet)
(1)This is a record maintained individually in KPF 174(D) to keep a progressive record and watch the activities of persons found to be indulged in rowdyism. These sheets will be opened on the orders of the Sub Divisional Police Officer or any higher authority on the basis of the reports from the local police officer or from other sources -
(2)The main forms of rowdyism are: -
(1)Indecent behaviour towards women and girls at educational centres, bus stands, parks, Railway Stations, running trains etc. by passing obscene remarks etc. This is popularly known as "Eve - teasing".
(2)Habitually committing affray and rioting.
(3)Habitually committing offences involving stabbing (324 IPC).
(4)Threatening and beating up prosecution witnesses in court premises and forcing them to turn hostile, by hirelings employed by political parties, moneyed people etc.
(5)Intimidation of peace loving people by acts of violence or by show of force or by abusive language.
(6)Rowdyism in Cinema Halls, theatres, sports stadiums, milk booths, bus stands, toddy shops, running trains etc.
(7)Habitual gambling, smuggling of foodgrains and illicit distillation.
(8)Forcible collection of subscriptions.
(9)Drunken and disorderly behaviour.
(10)Decoying persons to houses of ill - repute by pimps.
(11)Snatching of gold chains etc.
(12)Any other anti - social activity associated with violence.”
Section 118(a) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 which deals with penalty for causing grave violation of public order or danger reads as follows:
“118. Penalty for causing grave violation of public order or danger.— Any person who,—
(a)is found in a public place, in an intoxicated manner or rioting condition or incapable of looking after himself; or
(b)xxx
(c)xxx
(d)xxx
(e)xxx
(f)xxx
(g)xxx
(h)xxx
(i)xxx
shall, on conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine not exceeding ten thousand rupees or with both.”
The fact that the petitioner herein had been convicted, though with fine alone, for the aforesaid offence on three occasions would reveal that there were sufficient reasons for the police authorities to include his name in the rowdy history sheet. In a crime of this nature involving grave public nuisance and disorderly behaviour, interference of this Court is not warranted upon the procedure of inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the Rowdy History Sheet, since it is shown that he had been convicted on three occasions for the repeated commission of the same offence. In the above circumstances, it has to be held that there is no merit in this writ petition.
In the result, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.