- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8974 WP No. 19383 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 19383 OF 2022 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: HEMANTH KUMAR, S/O MUTTHURAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.1420/203, 1ST MAIN ROAD, VIDYARANYANAGAR, CHOUR PALYA, MAGADI ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 023. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIVEKANANDA D, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANASOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 086. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 011. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, VIJAYANAGAR SUB DIVISION, BASAVESHWAR NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 079. Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8974 WP No. 19383 of 2022 4. THE POLICE INSPECTOR, K.P. AGRAHARA POLICE STATION, BANGALORE - 560 023. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFER, AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO. 3 AND 4 TO REMOVE THE PETITIONERS NAME FROM THE ROWDY LIST/ HISTORY SHEETS VIDE ANNEX- H AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction by issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents No.3 and 4 to remove the petitioner's name in the list of rowdies maintained in the respondent No.4 - Police Station. 2. Heard Sri. Vivekananda D., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Mohammad Jaffer, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and have perused the material available on record. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8974 WP No. 19383 of 2022 3. The facts in brief germane are as follows: The petitioner is said to have got himself embroiled in seven crimes, all of which are narrated in the petition. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while taking this Court through the documents appended to the petition would seek to demonstrate that the petitioner has been acquitted in all the criminal cases, seven in number, as narrated in the petition. Owing to the fact that the petitioner got himself embroiled in the aforesaid crimes, the petitioner's name was drawn into the list of rowdies and it remains so, even as on date. The petitioner is said to have represented to respondent No.3 to remove the name of the petitioner from the list of rowdies owing to the fact that the petitioner has been acquitted in all the crimes and the only reason to draw the name of the petitioner in the list of rowdies was the petitioner getting embroiled in the aforesaid crimes. 4. The learned AGA would submit that if reasonable time is granted, the representation of the petitioner would meet its consideration strictly in consonance with law. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8974 WP No. 19383 of 2022 5. In that light, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the petition with a direction to respondent No.3 to consider the representation of the petitioner. While so doing, respondent No.3 shall bear in mind the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in consonance with the guidelines laid down by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.4504/2021 and connected cases disposed on 22.04.2022. The guidelines so laid down in the said order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench reads as follows: "GUIDELINES FOR ROWDY/HISTORY SHEETING: i. Before entering the name of an individual to the Register of Rowdies, the jurisdictional police shall collect and collate the material information concerning him and frame the proposal for registration on that basis. ii. A brief proposal notice shall be sent to the individual concerned in a sealed cover with an option to submit his representation within two weeks as to why his name should not be registered as a rowdy. However, there is no need to afford a personal hearing. In exceptional cases notice may be dispensed with for reasons to be recorded in the Register of Rowdies. iii. In terms of Clause (5), Order 1059 of the Manual, the Superintendent of Police or the Sub - Divisional Police Officer shall not accord approval for entering the name of individual concerned to the Register of Rowdies without calling for records and objectively considering the same. He shall briefly record his reasons for according the approval and mark a copy thereof to the individual forthwith, with a mention that he may petition the Police Complaints Authority, against the same. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8974 WP No. 19383 of 2022 iv. The jurisdictional Police shall compulsorily once in two years, undertake a periodic review of entries in the Register of Rowdies suo motu, as provided under Clause (2), Order 1057 of the Manual. However, it is open to the aggrieved, to make a representation at any time after one year of registration, seeking deletion of name from the Rowdy Register on the basis of changed circumstances such as rectitude, good conduct, social/community service, etc. V. The representation for review shall be considered by the jurisdictional Police at the initial level within a period of 30 days, during which necessary inputs may be obtained through the available sources as to merits of the claim. The recommendation shall be sent to the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police or the Sub Divisional Police Officer, within 15 days along with the representation & the material collected thereon. Such recommendation along with the result of consideration of the representation shall be communicated to the individual concerned within next 15 days. vi. Any individual aggrieved by the rejection of his representation or continuation of his name in the Register may petition to the Police Complaints Authority ordinarily within 30 days. However, no personal hearing shall avail. The petition shall be disposed off by recording reasons within an outer limit of 60 days, after considering the material on record or the fresh inputs that may be requisitioned, by the authority. vii. The entire process of Rowdy/History Sheeting from the stage of issuance of proposal notice as specified above, up to the issuance of the orders on the petition if any to the Police Complaints Authority, shall be done only in a sealed cover procedure and that nothing therein shall be disclosed nor made available to anyone, except to the aggrieved, nor any Right To Information (RTI) application shall be entertained in this regard. viii. The violation of these guidelines shall constitute a major misconduct and an adverse entry on proof thereof shall be made by the Disciplinary Authority - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8974 WP No. 19383 of 2022 in the Service Register of the erring official after hearing him and a copy thereof shall be marked to the victim of Rowdy Register/History Sheet, without brooking any delay. ix. Whatever guidelines herein above laid down shall be applicable to the case of History Sheeters as well, mutatis mutandis and subject to the provisions of Karnataka Police Manual, 1965." 6. Therefore, the representation of the petitioner at the hands of respondent No.3 shall merit consideration strictly in consonance with law. Law I mean, the law as laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench as quoted (supra). 7. The representation shall be considered and appropriate orders be passed and the orders communicated to the petitioner within an outer limit of 8 weeks , if not earlier. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- ______________________ JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3 CT: BHK