- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17552 WP No. 103323 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 103323 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: AMAREGOUDA S/O. BASANAGOUDA MULIMANI @ PATIL, AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. BRANCH POST MASTER AND AGRICULTURE, R/O. HIRESINGANAGUTTI VILLAGE, NOW AT ILKAL, DIST. BAGALKOT – 587 154. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BELAGAVI – 590 016. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BAGALKOT-587101. 4. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, HUNGUND TALUK, DIST. BAGALKOT – 587 118. 5. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HUNGUND TALUK, DIST. BAGALKOT – 587 118. 6. POLICE SUB INSPECTOR, ILKAL RURAL POLICE STATION, ILKAL, DIST. BAGALKOT – 587 125. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND SECTION 528 THE BNSS PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER NO.DSP/HUV/ROU.SHI/06/2025 PASSED BY THE Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17552 WP No. 103323 of 2025 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, HUNGUND, DISTT.BAGALKOTE DATED 02.05.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs: A. To quash the order No.DSP/HUV/ROU.SHI/06/2025 passed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hungund, Distt. Bagalkote dated 02.05.2025 vide Annexure-E against the petitioner. B. Pass such any other order/orders as per facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Raja Raghavendra Naik, appearing for the petitioner and learned AGA- Sri.T.Hanumareddy, appearing for the respondents. 3. The petitioner is said to have got himself embroiled in two crimes, out of which, the petitioner gets acquitted in one and in the other the proceedings have been stayed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. During the subsistence of the proceedings or initiation of the aforesaid crimes, the name of the petitioner was drawn in the list of rowdies. Since the petitioner was acquitted in one case and stay was granted in the other, the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17552 WP No. 103323 of 2025 petitioner submitted a representation to the third respondent seeking deletion of his name from the list of rowdies. The representation comes to be rejected in terms of the impugned order dated 02.05.2025. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court in the subject petition. 4. The impugned order does not consider as to why the name of the petitioner should remain in the list of rowdies. 5. In that light, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to reconsider the representation of the petitioner in consonance with the law laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of B.S.PRAKASH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS in W.P.No.4504/2021 disposed on 22.04.2022. The guidelines laid down by the Co- ordinate Bench read 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17552 WP No. 103323 of 2025 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. 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17552 WP No. 103323 of 2025 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 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, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17552 WP No. 103323 of 2025 mutatis mutandis and subject to the provisions of Karnataka Police Manual, 1965.” 6. Therefore, I deem it appropriate that, as a matter of form, to quash the impugned order dated 02.05.2025. The matter is remitted back to the hands of the respondent No.3 to reconsider the representation of the petitioner strictly in consonance with law and to pass necessary orders thereon, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order, with an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE RHR/-CT-ASC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 92