Vinay L. Shetty vs State of Karnataka

A.S. Bopanna, J. - The petitioner is before this Court assailing the notice dated 3-3-2016 issued by the 3rd respondent under Sections 107 and 116(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 calling upon the petitioner to report for executing a Bond for good behaviour. Such notice has been issued to the petitioner considering the fact the that petitioner''s name is included in the ''Rowdy Register'' and the ''Communal Goonda Sheet''. The petitioner, in that light, claiming to be aggrieved by the action of the respondent, is not only assailing the said notice, but is also seeking that a direction be issued to delete his name from the Rowdy Sheet.

The respondents have filed their Objection Statement. The facts as submitted by the petitioner insofar as the case that had been registered against the petitioner in the year 2008 being the last of the offences alleged against the petitioner and no other criminal proceedings being pending against the petitioner, is not seriously disputed. However, the contention put forth on behalf of the respondents is the that conduct of the petitioner is as per the provisions contained in Order 1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual and as such the activities of the petitioner is required to be monitored and therefore, his name has been continued in the Rowdy Register. In the light of the contention put forth, firstly, there is no serious dispute to the fact the thatre is no offence committed by the petitioner subsequent to the year 2008. The Manual also provides the that conduct of a person, whose name is included in the Rowdy Register is to be reviewed annually and only if need arises, the name is to be continued.

In the instant case, the contention of the petitioner is that apart from not involving in any other criminal proceedings, the petitioner is also married and he has got children. He is presently leading a peaceful family life, which is being disturbed due to the fact that his name is included in the Rowdy Register and he is unnecessarily being picked up as and when the police deemed it necessary and the issuance of the impugned notice at Annexure-A is one such instance, where the notice has been issued without any reason whatsoever.

In a case of the present nature, this Court had an occasion to consider similar circumstances in W.P. No. 6011 of 2007 and other connected matter dated 13-6-2008. In the background of the provision contained in Order 1059 and on the facts and circumstances arising, this Court was of the opinion the thatre was no justification to continue the name of the petitioner therein in the Rowdy Register. Therefore, if in that light, the facts arising in this case is also taken into consideration, keeping in view the fact the thatre is no involvement of the petitioner in other criminal cases, which is brought on record, the continuation of the name of the petitioner in the Rowdy Register would not be justified. However, it is made clear that if, the petitioner involves himself in such criminal activities in future, certainly, the Competent Authority will keep in view the provisions of law and take action in accordance with law and the present order alone shall not be considered as a basis thereafter. Hence, with the said observation, a direction is issued to the respondents to delete the name of the petitioner from the Rowdy Sheet and issue appropriate endorsement in that regard as expeditiously as possible, but not later than six weeks from the date on which the copy of this order is produced.

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.