- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13827 WP No. 3918 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 3918 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: MELWIN ARUN D'CUNHA S/O FELIX D'CUNHA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT MAVINAKERE ESTATE MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK, KALASA CHICKMAGALAURU - 577 124 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KETHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001 Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13827 WP No. 3918 of 2025 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE EAST ZONE, JAYADEVA CIRCLE, DAVANAGERE DAVANGERE DISTRICT - 577 002 3. THE SUPERINTENDET OF POLICE DAVANGERE DAVANGERE DISTRICT - 577 006 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHENNAGIRI POLICE STATION DAVANGERE DISTRICT - 577 213 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KALASA POLICE STATION CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 124 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA K.S., AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R4 AND R5 TO DELETE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONERS FROM THE MOB (MODUS OPERANDI BUREAU) MAINTAINED BY THE R4 AND R5 IN THEIR RECORDS AGAINST THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13827 WP No. 3918 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: "a. Directing the Respondent No.4 and 5 to delete the name of the Petitioner from the M.O.B (Modus Operandi Bureau) maintained by the Respondent No.4 and 5 in their records against the petitioner. b. Pass such other relief as this Honourable Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case." 2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Kethan Kumar, appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.Rahul Cariappa K.S., appearing for the respondents. 3. Facts in brief germane, are as follows: The petitioner, a resident at Kalsa, Mudigere gets embroiled in a crime in Crime No.62 of 2010 for offences punishable under Section 489(A)(B)(C)(D)(E) of the IPC. Pursuant to the registration of the crime, the name of the petitioner is drawn in the M.O.B (Modus Operandi Bureau) - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13827 WP No. 3918 of 2025 register in M.O.B. No.438/15222. The petitioner on a full blown trial, in S.C.No.54 of 2011 gets acquitted in terms of the order passed by the concerned Court on 02.01.2012. The petitioner on 19.08.2024 was summoned by the police, as annually a person whose name is drawn in the Modus Operandi Bureau gets summoned from the jurisdictional police. It is then, the petitioner is before this Court seeking removal of his name from the Modus Operandi Bureau. 4. The learned counsel Sri.Kethan Kumar representing the petitioner would submit that 12 years ago, the petitioner has been acquitted, there is no other case pending against him for his name to be drawn or kept in the Modus Operandi Bureau. He would seek its removal by a direction at the hands of this Court. 5. The learned Additional Government Advocate Sri. Rahul Cariappa K.S., would seek to defend the action on the score that the offence against him was counterfeiting currency, as obtaining under Section 489 (A)(B)(C)(D)(E) of the IPC and the offences under the Wildlife Protection Act. He - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13827 WP No. 3918 of 2025 would submit that the name of the petitioner should remain as an out-of-view criminal, as propensity to commit the offence all over again is writ large in the case of the petitioner. He would therefore seek dismissal of the petition. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. They would not require any reiteration. The issue in the lis is weather the name of the petitioner drawn into the Modus Operandi Bureau could be sustained even today for it to remain in the said registry. Drawing up of a name of a criminal under the Modus Operandi Bureau, is dealt with under clause 1720 of the Karnataka Police Manual. It reads as follows: " MODUS OPERANDI REGISTER OF ALL "OUT-OF-VIEW" PERSONS FOR WHOM HISTORY SHEETS ARE MAINTAINED IN STATIONS 1720. (1) A register in Form No.183 will be opened in the Bureau for each modus operandi classification noted in Order 1698 (1) for history-sheeted criminals who are out of view. This register will be written up from the particulars furnished by the Station House Officer in O.V. cards as and when they are received. If an 'out-of- - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13827 WP No. 3918 of 2025 view' history-sheeted person is known to have employed more than one modus operandi, his name should be entered under all those modus operandi. (2) If a history-sheeted person who has been out of view is traced or arrested, the entry or entries relating to him should be scored out from the relevant registers and the date of tracing or arrest should be noted in the remarks column. (3) The register is maintained for pointing out to the Investigating Officers the possibility of an 'out-of- view' criminal of a particular modus operandi being responsible for the crime under investigation." 8. The name can be drawn into the Modus Operandi Bureau, if a person is history sheeted, who has been out of view is traced or arrested, the entry or entries relating to him should be scored out from the relevant registers and the date of tracing or arrest should be noted in the remarks column, is what is mandated under sub-clause (2) of clause 1720. It is an admitted fact, the petitioner gets embroiled in a crime in the year 2010 for the afore-quoted offences. It is again an admitted fact that after full blown trial, the petitioner gets acquitted of the offences in S.C.No.54 of 2011. Therefore, on and from that date, the petitioner is holding the acquittal on his sleeve, but what still remains is the name of the petitioner, that was drawn into the Modus Operandi Bureau register on 19.06.2010. 13 years have passed by. The learned AGA is not - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13827 WP No. 3918 of 2025 able to point out any offence that is committed by the petitioner after 2012. That is, after the date of his acquittal. Therefore, keeping the name of a citizen under the Modus Operandi Bureau and summoning him to the police station every year on the score that his name is in the Modus Operandi Bureau, undoubtedly affects the right of any citizen and in the case at hand, the petitioner. In that light, the petition deserves to succeed and the prayer to be granted to the petitioner. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed; ii) The mandamus issues to respondent Nos.4 and 5 to delete the name of the petitioner from the Modus Operandi Bureau maintained before respondent Nos.4 and 5 from their records, without brooking any delay, at any rate, within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE KG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15