M. Rajendra Kumar Sharma vs State of Karnataka and Others

A.S. Bopanna, J—The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 18.10.2012 passed by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 vide Annexures-A and A1. The petitioner claims that he is residing along with his wife and four children in Bangalore though he hails from Rajasthan. He is carrying on his profession as an Astrologer for the past 15 years. The petitioner claims that he is a member of the Brahmin Samaj and he is active therein as a Secretary.

The case of the petitioner is that the order dated 18.10.2012 passed against him is without basis. It is contended that one Smt. Manjula had taken the first floor of his house on rent and was residing there since the year 2008. Due to certain disputes in that regard, the petitioner had filed a suit in O.S. No. 6314/2010. It is contended that in that context prior to the said suit and also subsequent thereto, the said Smt. Manjula had filed certain private complaint and also complaints to the jurisdictional Police in that regard. Though the petitioner had been acquitted in some of the cases, three cases are pending. The said Smt. Manjula is instrumental in bringing about the said cases. In that view, it is contended that the order dated 18.10.2012 seeking to include the petitioner in the rowdy register based on such cases is not sustainable. Hence it is contended that the order is liable to be quashed.

Learned Government Advocate on instructions as per the parawise remarks furnished to the learned Government Advocate would in fact refer to the very same cases which have been indicated in the order impugned herein. It is contended that in that circumstance when the petitioner has been involving himself case after case, the respondents were of the opinion that his activities require to be monitored and therefore he has been included in the rowdy list so as to keep a tab on the petitioner so that he does not indulge in such criminal activities to endanger the public order.

In the light of the rival contentions, what is necessary to be kept in view is that the need for including a person in the rowdy register would arise in the circumstance as contemplated under Order No. 1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual. The question therefore is as to whether the involvement of the petitioner in the cases referred to in the order could be considered as the satisfaction of the authorities to include the petitioner in the rowdy register and as to whether the conduct should be considered as one indicated in the order No. 1059 of the Police Manual.

It is no doubt true that there are about six cases referred to in the order impugned. In that regard as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the cases which have been initiated either by the private complaint filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate or by filing complaint before the jurisdictional Police has been at the instance of Smt. Manjula. The said Smt. Manjula is none other than the person to whom reference has been made in the petition as having been the tenant of the petitioner. If this is kept in view, what is relevant to be noticed is that the petitioner in fact had filed a suit in O.S. No. 6314/2010 as far back as on 06.09.2010. The said suit relates to the private dispute between the parties and in that light, the relief has been sought by the petitioner. If the same is kept in view, the complaints filed by Smt. Manjula are either prior to the said suit i.e., the first complaint being of the year 2008 when the misunderstanding began and all other complaints have been subsequent thereto. In such circumstance when only one of the complaints against the petitioner is without the involvement of said Smt. Manjula, but in all others she has a role to play, the nature of the allegations made therein cannot be considered as allegation against the petitioner to hold that he has been indulging in acts which is against the public order. Therefore in these circumstance if the order impugned is taken into consideration, I am of the opinion that the respondents were not justified in coming to the conclusion that in view of the said cases pending against petitioner, his name is to be included in the rowdy list. Therefore, the order impugned dated 18.10.2013 is liable to be quashed, which is accordingly done. The respondents are therefore directed to delete the name of the petitioner from the rowdy register and issue an endorsement to that effect to the petitioner. Needless to mention that if in law the need for considering the case of the petitioner in that regard in future arises, the same shall be done only in accordance with law.

In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.