Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2015
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION NOS.12942-12944 OF 2015 (GM-POLICE)
Between:
Sri Y S Purushotham, S/o Somanath, Aged 34 years, Occ.: Business, R/o.1116, PBS Road, Yelahanka, Bengaluru.
Sri Lava Kumar S, S/o Somanath, Aged 29 years, R/o.1116, PBS Road, Yelahanka, Bengaluru. …Petitioners
(By Shri Veeranna G Tigadi, Adv.)
And:
The Superintendent of Police, Chikkaballapur – 562 101.
The Superintendent of Police, Bengaluru District, Bengaluru – 560 052.
The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Doddaballapur Sub-Division, Doddaballapur – 561 203.
The Inspector of Police, Rajanukunte Police Station, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru – 560 064.
The Principal Secretary, Department of Homes, Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru – 56001. …Respondents
(By Shri Vijay Kumar A Patil, AGA) ---
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the orders of the R3 to include the names of the petitioners No.1 to 3 in the rowdy list dated 12.12.2013 and etc.,
This Petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following:-
O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate.
The petitioners are said to be brothers. Petitioner No.1 is engaged in garment business. He is the
Managing Partner of the firm M/s Balanjaneya International. Petitioner No.2 is also part of the firm run by the petitioner No.1 and they have an international business and they have centre in Japan as well. Petitioner No.3 is in the business of construction. He is also an administrator of Chaitanya Hospital. They are said to be engineering graduates, married and settled in life. They are income tax assesses. They have not indulged or were indulging in any illegal activities or have any bad antecedents.
On 10.05.2013 at about 8.30 p.m. one Girish and others had assaulted and caused grievous injuries to petitioner No.1. The accused in the said case attempted to commit murder of petitioner No.1. He was admitted to hospital. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were arrested. The police did not choose to register the complaint of the petitioners though petitioner No.1 is said to have filed an oral complaint while he was in hospital. On the basis of the complaint of petitioner No.1 however a case was ultimately
registered against Girish and others before the Rajanukunte police station in Crime No.84/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 324 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. In the attack against the petitioner No.1 he had sustained grievous injuries and a medical certificate in this regard is also produced alongwith the petition.
The petitioners No.2 and 3 were busy in attending to petitioner No.1 who was in hospital and at the instance of Girish it transpires that a case was also registered against petitioners and others in Crime No.83/2013. It is in this background that respondent No.3 had arrested petitioners No.2 and 3 on the allegation that they have committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 324, 324, 307, 504 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code.
There were further petitions filed by the petitioners in Criminal Misc.Nos.810 and 809 of 2013 seeking anticipatory bail, which was granted.
It however transpires that respondent No.3 would constantly send for the petitioners and demand their photographs. When they wanted to know the reason for such a request, they were informed of having been included and listed in rowdy register maintained by the third respondent. In this regard they had approached the Sub Inspector of Police, Rajanukunte police station requesting further information and the basis on which they had been included in the rowdy list. Except for the above said case filed at the instance of the respondent, there were no other incidents or cases against them. But they had figured in the rowdy list. They had issued notices to respondent Nos.1 to 4 calling upon them to delete their names as it seriously affected their reputation. There was no response from the respondent and hence the present petition.
The learned Government Advocate on having received the notice of present petition has now obtained instructions to state that the petitioners have been included in the rowdy list only on the basis of the above said criminal case that has been instituted at the instance of respondent No.1, there are no other cases pending against the petitioners nor were registered against the petitioners earlier and apart from this there is no other incident.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would therefore point out that according to the police manual and Order No.1059 of Volume II of the Commentary of Karnataka Police Manual, 2011 edition. It is evident that a rowdy is defined as a goonda and includes a hooligan, rough, vagabond or any person who is dangerous to the public peace and tranquility. In the present case on hand there are no such incidents being sought to be pointed out against the petitioners except the pending criminal case
which is yet to be concluded and was clearly a counter blast which was instituted by the petitioners. On the basis of the said case alone it was not possible to label the petitioners as rowdies. Every police station has a ‘Register of Rowdies’ maintained in 3 parts, Part-A, Part-B and Part- C and the names and particulars of ‘Confirmed Rowdies’ who are residents in the police station concerned should be entered in the register Part A. It is not evident as to how it was confirmed that the petitioners were rowdies on the basis of one case which is yet to reach its logical conclusion and names of persons against whom there are ample instances of rowdyism should be entered in the register Part A or Part B after the records are checked by the Circle Inspector and when there are one or more instances of rowdyism against any person or if he has a very bad reputation in the locality as a bully, his name should be entered in Part C. When a name is entered in Part C on the ground of very bad reputation, a thorough enquiry should
be made by the Officer in charge of the Police Station before the entry is made. There is no such procedure shown to have taken place in the present case on hand.
On going through the statement made by the Government Advocate it is clear that there should be a running history, of all the criminal activities of the rowdy including reasonable suspicion of his complicity in cases and/or complaints against him with case numbers, if any, and results of cases, etc., should be mentioned in separate paragraphs which should be numbered chronologically, against each entry. In the running history, there should be reference to Station House Diary entries, source reports, mass petitions, petty cases etc., Therefore, it would undoubtedly indicate that it is only when there are several criminal cases or incidents in which a person has indulged and only when he gains the reputation of a rowdy that there is a possibility of a person being listed in the ‘Rowdy
Register’ and therefore the present case on hand would clearly indicate that it was with an ulterior motive or on a bias against the petitioners that they have been unfairly named as rowdies and their names have figured in the Rowdy Register.
The learned Government Pleader having made a statement with reference to the Register of Rowdies which is now produced in court would clearly indicate that apart from a single instance in respect of which a trial is yet to be completed the petitioners are named as rowdies, which appears to be out of place. Accordingly the petition is allowed. Respondent No.3 is directed to remove the names of petitioners from the rowdy list bearing Nos.SPDO/MRR/1345/13, SPDO/MRR/1346/13, SPDO/MRR/1347/13 dated 12.12.2013. However, this does not preclude the respondent police from including the petitioners in the list of rowdies if there is valid information
and material on which they could proceed in accordance with law. SD/- JUDGE
ykl