AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J
Petitioner primarily wants his name to be removed from the rowdy list maintained by respondents 5 and 6.
Petitioner alleges that while he was in college, he was involved with student politics and began a political career with the Communist Party of India, as a result, he was involved in a few minor criminal cases. Later, due to certain ideological differences with the leadership, he quit the said party and joined the Bharatiya Janata Party, which agitated the leadership of his erstwhile party. Petitioner further alleges that, after the CPI(M) came to power in 2006, the police had, in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Police Manual, included him in the rowdy list and also prosecuted and harassed him and adopted every dubious measure including initiating proceedings under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (for short KAAPA). The preventive detention order was cut short as it was not approved. Thereafter he was even roped in as an accused in a murder case for allegedly harbouring the murderers and was incarcerated for a long period. Again in 2009, based on a false police report, petitioner alleges that he was subjected to preventive detention, which order was also revoked within seven days. According to the petitioner his woes continued when he was once again detained under the KAAPA in 2014, again based on a false report and later, by the time the Advisory Board revoked the order of detention, 44 days had elapsed. Petitioner alleges that the sixth respondent again falsely implicated him in unnecessary cases and the Human Rights Commission intervened and severely criticised the sixth respondent for harassing the petitioner, as evident from Ext.P5.
Petitioner alleges that in the meantime his name was included in the rowdy history list by referring to cases which were non-existent or cases which were minor in nature. Petitioner also alleges that for three decades he was denied a passport alleging the existence of criminal cases against him. He avers that for the last several years, as there were no criminal cases registered against him, he requested respondents 2 and 3 in January 2024, to remove his name from the rowdy history list maintained by respondents 5 and 6. Petitioner contends that despite running from pillar to post to have his name removed from the rowdy history list, the respondents have not moved a little finger, and on the other hand, they are devising means to deny him such a relief. According to the petitioner, he intends to leave the country and join his son, who is residing abroad, and since retention of his name in the rowdy history list without any basis would seriously prejudice his liberty, he seeks directions to remove his name from the rowdy history list. Petitioner has also sought a compensation of Rs.10 Million from respondents 4 to 6 for the illegal and arbitrary actions, apart from seeking directions for departmental action against him.
A statement has been filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Thiruvananthapuram, stating that petitioner has been involved in several criminal cases from 2002 onwards and that his name was included in the rowdy history list from 2008, on the basis of the request of the sixth respondent and later in 2011, the history sheet of the petitioner was transferred to the fifth respondent since he shifted his residence, and presently, his name is maintained in the history sheet of the said respondent. It is also alleged that though petitioner was involved in 21 criminal cases registered at various police stations mainly at Peroorkada and Mannanthala, in 20 of those cases, he was either acquitted or the proceedings were quashed. It is further stated that, apart from the said 20 cases, petitioner is involved in Crime No.884/2024, which alleges commission of offences under sections 308, 323, 506, 509, 341, 342, 452, 451 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 before the Mannathala Police Station and that the said case has been stayed in Crl.M.C No.8027/2024. Respondents allege that the petitioner is a habitual offender and was a menace to society and his activities have broken the peaceful life of the public and hence, the police departments were compelled to take legal actions to restrain him from his illegal and anti-social activities. The statement also mentions that petitioner had filed three petitions before the Director General of Police, the Commissioner of Police, Thiruvananthapuram and the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Thiruvananthapuram, requesting to exempt him from the rowdy history list. On receipt of the above petitions, an enquiry was conducted and since the Mannanthala Police reported that the petitioner has an illegal nexus with the certain mafia, the petitions were not considered favourably.
I have heard Sri. C.K.Mohanan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri. K.A.Noushad, the learned Public Prosecutor.
Maintaining a rowdy history sheet is not provided by any statutory prescriptions but it is maintained as per the Kerala Police Manual. However KAAPA defines a 'rowdy' in section 2(t) and also states about a 'known rowdy' in section 2(p), as follows:
“S.2(t) 'rowdy' means and includes a person who either by himself or as a member of a gang commits or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of any offences under sections 153A and 153B of Chapter VIII and Chapters XV, XVI, XVII, & XXII of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Central Act 45 of 1860), or any offences under the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 (Central Act 54 of 1959), or the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (Central Act 6 of 1908),-
(i) punishable with five or more years of imprisonment of any type, or; (ii) with less than five years of imprisonment of any type, except those punishable with less than one year of imprisonment; or
(iii) such offences under any other law for the time being in force, coming under item (i) or (ii), as may be notified by the Government, from time to time.”
“S.2(p) 'known rowdy' means any person, who had been, by reason of acts done within the previous seven years as calculated from the date of the order imposing any restriction or detention under this Act,-
(i) made guilty, by a competent court at least once for an offence of the nature under item (i) of clause (t) of section 2 or any offence notified as such under the said clause; or
(ii) made guilty, by a competent court at least twice for any offence of the nature mentioned under item (ii) of clause (t) of section 2 or any offence notified as such under the said clause; or
(iii) found, on investigation or enquiry by a competent police officer or other authority, on complaints initiated by persons other than police officers, in three separate instances not forming part of the same transaction to have committed any offence mentioned in clause (t) of section 2.”
Clause 259 of the Kerala Police Manual deals with rowdy history sheet and reads as follows:
“259. (1) This is a record maintained individually in KPF 174(D) to keep a progressive record and watch of the activities of persons found to be indulging in rowdyism. These sheets will be opened on the orders of the Sub Divisional Police Officer or any higher authority on the basis of 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.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx xxx
(8) A Rowdy History Sheet may be closed on the order of the Superintendent of Police, based on the recommendations of the Circle Inspector of Police routed through the Deputy Superintendent of Police/Assistant Superintendent of Police”
Maintaining a rowdy history sheet is certainly prejudicial to the liberty of an individual. Nevertheless, Section 259(8) of the Kerala Police Manual provides for closure of the rowdy history sheet and states that it can be done on the basis of orders of the Superintendent of Police based on the recommendation of the Circle Inspector of Police routed through the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Thus, the rowdy history sheet can be closed pursuant to appropriate recommendations.
Though the petitioner is alleged to have been involved in 21 criminal cases from 2002 onwards and a rowdy history sheet is maintained against his name from 2008, it is evident from the statement filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police that in 20 cases he has been either acquitted or discharged or the proceedings against him have been quashed. The following tabular column is extracted from the statement filed by the respondents:
SL
No.
Crime No.
Police Station
Section
Present Stage
1
172/2002
Peeroorkada
341, 342, 323 & 34 IPC
Acquitted on 30.11.2007
2
81/2006
Peeroorkada
341, 323, 506(i) IPC
Acquitted on 03.02.2009
3
89/2007
Peeroorkada
341, 323, 506(ii) IPC
Acquitted on 05.06.2009
4
219/2007
Peeroorkada
341, 323, 506(ii) IPC
Acquitted on 07.06.2010
5
512/2007
Peeroorkada
323, 47, 506(ii), 34 IPC & 27 of Arms Act
Acquitted on 08.11.2010
6
389/2008
Peeroorkada
143, 147, 149, 427, 504 IPC
Fined Rs.400/-
7
423/2008
Peeroorkada
341, 323, 294(b), 341 IPC
Acquitted on 28.04.2010
8
111/2008
Vanchiyoor
143, 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC &
27 of Arms Act & Sec 3 r/w 5 of Explosive Act
Trial Court sentenced 3 years imprisonment. Later Hon.High Court acquitted the petitioner
9
312/2010
Peeroorkada
341, 323, 324 & 34 IPC
Acquitted
10
671/2012
Mannanthala
341, 323, 324, 294(b) & 34 IPC
Quashed on 26.03.2014
11
1020/2013
Mannanthala
341, 294(b), 323, 324, 326, 308 & 34 IPC
Acquitted on 25.02.2021
12
1027/2013
Mannanthala
323, 294(b), 506(ii) & 34 IPC
Acquitted on 17.11.2014
13
924/2014
Mannanthala
457, 324 IPC
RC No.07/2016
14
508/2016
Mannanthala
143, 147, 149, 341, 294(b) &506 IPC
RC No.38/2017
15
745/2017
Mannanthala
341, 294(b), 323 & 506 IPC
Acquitted on 12.10.2018
16
516/2021
Mannanthala
294(b), 323, 506, 447 & 34 IPC
Acquitted on 26.08.2023
17
551/2021
Mannanthala
117e of KP Act
Fined Rs.1500/-
18
1028/2021
Mannanthala
294(b), 506, 448, 427 & 34 IPC
Acquitted on 31.10.2023
19
1041/2021
Mannanthala
294(b), 341, 506 & 34 IPC
Quashed on 02.06.2022
20
485/2022
Mannanthala
294(b), 341, 323, 506(ii) IPC
Acquitted on 29.12.2023
The only remaining case against the petitioner is a crime of the year 2024, which has been stayed by this Court. Thus, it is evident that in not a single case has the petitioner been convicted. Despite the above, on three occasions, proceedings under the KAAPA were initiated against him, which were all either interfered with or disapproved. The aforesaid circumstance lends credence to the contentions of the petitioner that he has been falsely targeted without any basis.
In the decision in Rajesh R. v. State Police Chief and Others (2018 KHC 888), a Division Bench of this Court observed that a person who has not committed any offence for breach of peace for the last ten years cannot be said to be a habitual offender. It was further observed that merely because a person committed various offences long ago cannot be a reason to retain his name in the rowdy history sheet as well.
The statement filed by the respondents reflects that when the petitioner submitted his application for removing his name from the rowdy history sheet, a report was called for from the fifth respondent who stated that the petitioner has connections with the land mafia. However, no such crime is seen to have been charged against the petitioner alleging the commission of such an offence. All the above circumstances indicate that the police have been acting with vengeance against the petitioner and initiating proceedings against him without any basis.
Though petitioner's name was included in the rowdy history sheet for the last 16 years, till date he has not been convicted even in a single case, which indicates that the petitioner's allegation that he is being falsely roped in as an accused, is not totally misplaced. The term rowdy has a negative impact on a person’s character and reputation. The cognitive effect on a person's character when he is branded as a rowdy is to immediately assign, in the minds of the public, a negative impression about that person. This has an effect on the liberty of the individual concerned as it would always brand him, in the eyes of the public, as a criminal. In the absence of even a single conviction against him, the continuance of petitioner’s name in the rowdy history sheet is an infringement on his right to personal liberty especially since the repercussions of such an inclusion are far-reaching.
As the respondents have not been able to provide any justification for the continuance of petitioner’s name in the rowdy history sheet and they have under one pretext or the other, refused to remove his name from the said list, this Court is of the view that circumstances warrant a specific direction to be issued to render justice to the party. However, the prayer for compensation and for departmental action against the officers are not warranted in the circumstances of the case and they are declined.
In the result, there will be a direction to the third respondent to issue appropriate orders under clause 259(8) of the Kerala Police Manual deleting the petitioner's name from the rowdy history sheet on the basis of the application admittedly received by respondents 2 to 4, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is allowed to the above extent.