Karnataka High Court
Anand vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 January, 2026
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:428
WP No. 204199 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO.204199 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
ANAND S/O HANUMANTH,
AGED 29 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
TIMPAPUR PATE, RAICHUR
DIST. RAICHUR-584102.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANTOSHKUMAR B. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
HOME DEPARTMENT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
Digitally signed by
NIJAMUDDIN VIDHANA SOUDHA,
JAMKHANDI DR. AMBEDKAR BHEEDHI,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF BENGALURU-560001.
KARNATAKA
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, RAICHUR
RAICHUR-HYDERABAD ROAD, MANCHALEPUR,
DIST. RAICHUR, KARNATAKA-584101.
3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, RAICHUR
RAICHUR-HYDERABAD ROAD, MANCHALEPUR,
DIST. RAICHUR, KARNATAKA-584101.
4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
NETAJI NAGAR POLICE STATION,
DIST. RAICHUR-584102
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:428
WP No. 204199 of 2025
HC-KAR
REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI-585105.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE
WRIT(S)/ORDER(S)/DIRECTION(S), THEREBY QUASHING THE
ROWDY SHEET REGISTER ORDER/DIRECTION NO./ RAUV /
ROWDY/ 2017 DATED 08-05-2017 MAINTAINED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.4 (ANNEXURE-A).
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
ORAL ORDER
Facts of the case are that the petitioner is a businessman residing in Raichur, Dist: Raichur. It is contended that there was personal enmity between the petitioner and one Thimmaiah and others. In furtherance of the above enmity, there erupted a fight between two groups of people. Accordingly, based on the complaint, an FIR came to be registered against petitioner in Crime No.25/2016 and 26/2016, within the jurisdiction of Netajinagar Police Station, Raichur. The charge sheet -3- NC: 2026:KHC-K:428 WP No. 204199 of 2025 HC-KAR came to be filed against this petitioner in Crime No.25/2016 (Spl.AC(SC) No.290/2017) on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Raichur, for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 323, 149, 148, 147, 143, 504, 506, 307 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (10) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and in Crime No.26/2016 (CC No.1794/2023) for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 332, 336, 353, 109 read with Section 149 of IPC. Based on the registration of the crime and filing of the charge sheet, respondent No.4/Inspector of Police recommended to open a rowdy sheet against the petitioner herein. Based on which the respondent No.3, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Raichur ordered for opening up of the rowdy sheet without issuing the proposal notice. A rowdy sheet came to be opened in the name of petitioner dated 08.05.2017 by entering his name in the register.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:428 WP No. 204199 of 2025 HC-KAR
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the case so made out by the respondent in Crime No.25/2016 and 26/2016, the petitioner herein came to be acquitted on 21.04.2018 and on 30.01.2025 after trial. Therefore, it is contended that there is no criminal case pending as against the petitioner or any complaint registered against the petitioner before the police station. It is further contended that on the basis of the Rowdy Sheet Register, maintained by the respondent police, respondent No.4 has been frequently summoning the petitioner to the police station and ordering him to sit the entire day in the police station without there being any complaint, FIR or even an allegation against the petitioner, despite the fact that he is not required in any case for any investigation whatsoever.
3. It is further contended that the petitioner has been mentally harassed and not able to cultivate his land by utilising his valuable time, which is now spent in visiting the police station, without there being any complaint -5- NC: 2026:KHC-K:428 WP No. 204199 of 2025 HC-KAR registered or any basis, which is in total violation of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India, restricting and restraining the freedom of movement and the fundamental rights of the citizen, namely the petitioner herein. Therefore, petitioner submitted a representation on 03.04.2025 to review and remove his name from the Rowdy Sheet Register. But respondent No.2 has not communicated or passed any order in respect of the representation so submitted. Hence, left with no other alternative efficacious remedy. Petitioner is perforced to approach this Court for indulgence.
4. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent authorities primarily invoked or opened the rowdy sheet against the petitioner without following the provisions of the Karnataka Police Manual, 1965 more specifically standing order No.1059 and the procedure contemplated therein, with regard to the intricacies enumerated therein including naming the petitioner as whether Part A, Part B or Part C and following -6- NC: 2026:KHC-K:428 WP No. 204199 of 2025 HC-KAR other procedures contemplated therein. It is also contended by learned counsel that the respondents are hell bent to brand the petitioner as a rowdy, despite the fact that the petitioner has been acquitted in the two cases that were framed against him and also the fact that there are no cases pending against him any more in any police station. Therefore, when the petitioner made an application or representation, the respondent authorities ought to have accepted the representation and provided an opportunity to the petitioner to putforth his case of there being no allegation or criminal cases pending against him and that the inclusion of his name and continuing his name in the Rowdy Sheet Register is violative the principles of natural justice including his personal liberty. It is further contended by learned counsel that there is all possibilities that the petitioner may be implicated in other unnecessary cases, as petitioner is vulnerable to be dragged into the police station and framed in some cases, -7- NC: 2026:KHC-K:428 WP No. 204199 of 2025 HC-KAR where he is not even involved. Apparently there is no case pending against the petitioner in any of the police stations.
5. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner does not fall into the bracket of standing order No.1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual and he ought not to have been included in the Rowdy Sheet Register by the respondents, thereby curbing the fundamental right of the petitioner including Article 19 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is also contended by learned counsel that the petitioner's name has been included in the rowdy sheet without conducting any enquiry nor providing an opportunity of hearing or calling for any explanation or following the procedure contemplated under the Karnataka Police Manual, more specifically standing order No.1059. It is also contended that in spite of the petitioner being acquitted in the two cases that were filed against him due to personal enmity and despite the representation being made, the petitioner's name is not struck off from the entry in the -8- NC: 2026:KHC-K:428 WP No. 204199 of 2025 HC-KAR register of rowdies, thereby causing untold hardship and violation of his fundamental right of free movement and his liberty. The respondent No.4 has been unnecessarily calling the petitioner to the jurisdictional police station and keeping him, for no reason whatsoever, which is against the Constitutional fundamental rights in favour of the petitioner. It is also not the case of the respondent that there are any cases registered against the petitioner, to be called to the jurisdictional police station at the whims and fancies of the respondents. Under the circumstances, learned counsel seeks to set aside the impugned order of branding the petitioner as a rowdy sheeter in the register maintained by the respondent authority, namely respondent No.4.
6. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the respondent/State contends that on the basis of the criminal cases registered against the petitioner and others, petitioner was included in the Rowdy Sheet Register. It is no doubt true that the petitioner has -9- NC: 2026:KHC-K:428 WP No. 204199 of 2025 HC-KAR been acquitted in the first case in the year 2018 and in the second case in the year 2025. But the fact remains that he had been charge sheeted in both the cases and underwent trial, but has been acquitted. Therefore, there is no illegality committed or procedural lapse by the respondents in including the name of the petitioner in the rowdy sheet maintained by the respondents. Therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed, as the judgment relied by the petitioner in the case of Sri B. S. Prakash v. State of Karnataka and others reported in 2022 (4) KCCR 3648, is much later than the registration of the name of petitioner in the rowdy sheet and it should not ennure to his benefit.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
8. It is a fundamental rule of law that when a person is implicated as a rowdy sheeter by including his name in the list of rowdy sheet, the onus is upon the State
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:428 WP No. 204199 of 2025 HC-KAR to follow the due procedure contemplated under the relevant rules and regulations. In the present case, the Karnataka Police Manual, more specifically, the Register of Rowdies maintained in order No.1059, which deals with history sheets and rowdy sheets and enrollment or registration of persons in the said sheet for register for continuous monitoring by the police authorities, is not followed. Standing Order No.1059 deals with registration of rowdies. The definition provided is that a rowdy may be defined as a gunda and includes a hooligan, tough, vagabond or any person who is dangerous to public peace and tranquility. There are many forms of rowdism, which are described therein and the process and procedure contemplated to be maintained in different parts, namely Part A, Part B and Part C, which govern the maintenance of a register and the names of the rowdies in their respective parts. It is the duty and obligation cast upon the respondents, which is not optional to follow the due procedure contemplated under the standing orders of the
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:428 WP No. 204199 of 2025 HC-KAR Karnataka Police Manual, while entering the name of a person in the rowdy sheet and there are certain procedures to be mandatorily followed before entering the names. As contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, the process and procedure as contemplated under the standing Order No.1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual has not been followed and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to file his reply or explanation for removing his name in the Rowdy Sheet Register and merely because he was involved in a criminal case on a personal enmity of a rivalry between two gangs, he has been framed, in which also the petitioner has been acquitted in the years 2018 and 2025. It is also contended that though the petitioner has made a representation to the respondent authorities after the acquittal on 03.04.2025, the representation has not been considered and even after the acquittal he has been summoned to the jurisdictional police station for unnecessary interrogation, when there is no case pending against him.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:428 WP No. 204199 of 2025 HC-KAR
9. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Sri B. S. Prakash (supra) laid down certain guidelines. The guidelines laid down by this Court are 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
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:428 WP No. 204199 of 2025 HC-KAR 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 along with the result of consideration of the representation shall be communicated to the individual concerned within next 15 days.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:428 WP No. 204199 of 2025 HC-KAR 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.
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:428 WP No. 204199 of 2025 HC-KAR 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."
10. The judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu in CRMC No.758/2017 dealt with issue of defamation, relying upon the infamous case of Smt.Kiran Bedi and Jinder Singh V. the Committee of Inquiry and another1, and held that a "good reputation" is an element of personal security and is protected by the Constitution equally with a right to enjoyment of life, liberty and property. So it has to be held to be essential component vis-a-vis right to life of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, recognizes the right to have opinions and the right of freedom of expression under Article 19 of the Constitution of India is subject to right to reputation of others. Reputation is "not 1 AIR 1989 SC 714
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:428 WP No. 204199 of 2025 HC-KAR only a salt of life, but the purest treasure and the most precious perfume of life". The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri B. S. Prakash (supra) has laid down guidelines, which are to be followed while registering the name of a person in the Rowdy Sheet Register, which even prior to the said judgment was a mandate for the respondents to have followed strictly in accordance to the standing order No.1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual, which in my opinion considering the facts and circumstance of the present case has not been followed and even after the acquittal of the petitioner in the two cases, which culminated in acquittal after detailed trial and even after the representation given by the petitioner for removing his name from the Rowdy Sheet Register, there is no response or reply or action by the respondents in removing his name. The continuation of the name of a person in a rowdy sheet without there being any cogent reason does not augur well with the State as a parens patriae, which is a guardian of the citizens of this country.
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:428 WP No. 204199 of 2025 HC-KAR For the reason that when there is no case pending, no allegation made, no complaint registered, and despite acquittal order passed against the petitioner, the State has to provide an opportunity to the citizen to reform himself, to lead a normal life and mix with the society to lead a life of a normal citizen. Branding him to be a rowdy by opening rowdy sheet is not the solution and it adds to the problem of creation of mindset of a rowdy, a criminal and leading to joining of gangs and creation of gang wars, which is detrimental to the society.
11. In view of the non-compliance of the procedure contemplated under standing order No.1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual and non-consideration of the representation given by the petitioner pursuant to his acquittal in the two cases, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has made out a valid case to consider favourably. Accordingly, I pass the following:
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:428
WP No. 204199 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned order dated 08.05.2017,
registering the name of the petitioner in the Rowdy Sheet Register, maintained by the respondent No.4, is hereby quashed.
iii. The respondents are hereby directed to remove the name of the petitioner from the Rowdy Sheet Register maintained by them, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
iv. Liberty, however, is reserved to the respondent/State to proceed in accordance with law against the petitioner, if at all any case is made out and while doing so, they shall strictly follow the guidelines laid down by this Court in the case of Sri B. S. Prakash v. State of Karnataka and others reported in 2022 (4) KCCR 3648.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE NJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45 CT:SI