Chandrappa vs State of Karnataka

A.N. Venugopal Gowda, J.—Seeking quashing of rowdy sheet opened and maintained against the petitioner in the 4th respondent-Police Station, this writ petition was filed.

According to the respondents, the petitioner is one of the accused in Cr. No. 186/2009 registered by the 4th respondent-Police, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120-B, 307 and 302 r/w Sec. 149 of IPC. According to the respondents, the petitioner and his associates are notorious rowdies and there are many cases against them in different police stations of Bangalore City and outside and all the associates of the petitioner are involved in real estate business and criminal activities. According to the respondents, the petitioner and other accused, conspired and committed murder of Ravi Raj @ Bullet Ravi, deceased in Cr. No. 186/2009 and hence, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Yelahanka Police Station, opened rowdy sheet and entered the name of the petitioner, in the rowdy list, on 30.01.2010. Respondents contend that the petitioner created public nuisance and disturbed public life and peace on 17.12.2012 in Attur Layout and hence, the 4th respondent registered case in Cr. No. 338/2012, under Sections 110(E) and (G) of Cr.P.C. and the petitioner was arrested and produced before the Taluk Executive Magistrate and that apart a case was registered on 14.06.2013 in Cr. No. 184/2013, on account of petitioner attacking one Ashwathappa and assaulting him.

In respect of the case registered in Cr. No. 186/2009 by the 4th respondent-Police, charge sheet was filed. Indisputedly, the petitioner was not found guilty in the case.

Sri K. Abhinav Anand, learned advocate contended that none of the conditions prescribed in Order No. 1059 of Karnataka Police Manual apply to the petitioner, as he was not involved in any of such cases and the opening of rowdy sheet against the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal. He submitted that the petitioner comes from Thoti family of Attur and his father and forefathers were doing thoti work and are agriculturists. He submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any criminal case, except the one shown as accused No. 15 in the charge sheet filed pursuant to the case registered in Cr. No. 186/2009 and the petitioner having not been found guilty in the said case and the main accused having also been acquitted, the petitioner has been made to suffer humiliation, mental torture and loss of reputation and that his family members are also subjected to humiliation and harassment and in the circumstances, interference is called for.

Sri R. Om Kumar, learned AGA, on the other hand, contended that the petitioner falls within the definition of "rowdy" under the provisions of Order 1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual and since the conduct of the petitioner established that he indulged in criminal activities and disturbed public peace and tranquility and created nuisance to the law abiding citizens by using force, his name was included in the rowdy list. He submitted that no fundamental or statutory right of the petitioner having been violated, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought.

Keeping in view the record of the case and the rival contentions, question for consideration is, whether the inclusion of the name of the petitioner in rowdy list is justified?

After completion of investigation of the case registered in Cr. No. 186/2009, charge sheet was filed and the petitioner was shown as accused No. 15. The case was split up against the petitioner. After trial, by a judgment dated 11.01.2013, as at Annexure-E, accused Nos. 1 to 14 were acquitted for the charged offences. The case filed against the petitioner was quashed in Crl. P. No. 6096/2009. Respondents have not produced any record, in proof of the allegations made in the counter filed, alleging that the petitioner was involved and continues to involve in criminal activities.

In justification of the allegations made in the counter against the petitioner or any of his alleged associates, no record of whatsoever nature was produced for perusal of the Court. After filing of this writ petition, case in Cr. No. 184/2013 was registered against the petitioner and investigation being complete, a charge sheet has been filed. Except the said case, no other criminal case is pending against the petitioner.

Order No. 1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual do not empower the police to open rowdy sheet against a person, merely on account of a criminal case having been registered. It is only on the existence of the grounds enumerated therein, rowdy sheet can be opened and the name of a person involving in such activities can be entered in the rowdy list.

In the instant case, none of the grounds enumerated in Order No. 1059 of Karnataka Police Manual are shown to exist. There is no material, in existence, based on which the petitioner''s name was included in the rowdy list. Merely on account of a case registered in Cr. No. 186/2009, the rowdy sheet was opened against the petitioner and his name was entered in the rowdy list. After investigation, charge sheet was filed and all the accused, after trial, were acquitted and the case filed against the petitioner-accused No. 15 was quashed, in Crl. P. No. 6096/2009.

It is trite that mere registration of a criminal case cannot be used as a weapon to enter the name of a person in the rowdy list and as already stated, rowdy sheet can be opened against a person, in case, the person falls within the definition of "rowdy" and clause (2) of the said order is attracted. Since none of the grounds enumerated in Order No. 1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual exist, as on date, there is no justification to continue the name of the petitioner in the rowdy list.

In the result, writ petition is allowed and the rowdy sheet opened and maintained against the petitioner in the 4th respondent-Police Station is quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the respondents to take action against the petitioner, in case, his activities fall within the grounds enumerated in Order No. 1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual. It is made clear that this order would not come in the way of the respondents proceeding against the petitioner, if any of his activities make him fall within the definition of "rowdy" in Order No. 1059 of Karnataka Police Manual and the grounds therein are attracted.

No costs.