Sri N G Ramachandra vs Superintendent Of Police on 28 February, 2013

[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Sri N G Ramachandra vs Superintendent Of Police on 28 February, 2013

Author: Mohan .M. Shantanagoudar

Bench: Mohan .M. Shantanagoudar

                            1


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

      DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013

                        BEFORE

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAN .M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

            W.P.NO.26082 OF 2012 (GM-POLICE)

 BETWEEN:

 SRI N G RAMACHANDRA
 S/O LATE GANGEGOWDA
 AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
 R/A NO.28, 4TH MAIN ROAD
 KUKKRAHALLI
 MYSORE-09
                                          ... PETITIONER

 (By Sri:MANJU & MANJU ASSOCIATES)

 AND

 1.     SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
        TUMKUR DIST
        MANDYA-571 419.

 2.     THE DY.SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
        TIPTUR
        TUMKUR DISTRICT-572212

 3.     STATION HOUSE OFFICER
        C S PURA POLICE STATION
        C S PURA, GUBBI TALUK
        TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 212.     ... RESPONDENTS

 (By Sri:E.S. INDIRESH, HCGP)
                          2


     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER OF INCLUSION OF THE NAME OF THE
PETITIONER IN THE ROWDY REGISTER VIDE ORDER
DATED 15.11.1982 VIDE ANNX-D.

    THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-

                        ORDER

The petitioner has sought for quashing the rowdy register dated 15.11.1982 insofar as it relates to inclusion of the petitioner's name in the rowdy register is concerned.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the inclusion of his name in the rowdy register maintained by respondent No.3 police station. As per Annexure-D, rowdy register against the petitioner is opened on 15.11.1982. Such entry of the petitioner's name in the rowdy register is made based on the order of Deputy 3 Superintendent of Police, Tiptur No. TSD 821/82.

2. Learned High Court Government Pleader Sri. E.S. Indiresh, on behalf of respondents submits that no case is registered against the petitioner after the year 1982 and that no allegations are forthcoming against the petitioner.

3. Clause 1059 of Karnataka Police Manual deals with Register of Rowdies. The same discloses that:- (1) a rowdy may be defined as a Goonda and includes a hooligan, tough, vagabond or any person who is dangerous to the public peace and tranquility.

(2) the main forms of rowdyism are:-

a. Passing indecent remarks at women and school and college girls;

b. Intimidation of law abiding people by acts of violence or by show of force or by abusive language;

c. Forcible collection of subscription; d. Taking sides in petty quarrels between land-lords and tenants or between co- tenants and threatening people of the opposite party;

e. disorder conduct;

f. Rioting; and g. Snatching and committing robbery. Absolutely no allegations are found against this petitioner of the aforementioned types and consequently, the authorities should not have included & continued the name of the petitioner in the rowdy list. As could be seen from the 5 rowdy register, the petitioner is President of District Raitha Sangha. He is actively involved in Raitha Sangha activities and he has visited Shimoga, Bider, Bangalore and Tumkur Districts in order to involve in Raitha Sangha activities. However, the history recorded in the rowdy register makes it clear that the petitioner was responsible for creating trouble in K.G. Temple, Nagasanda, Kodihalli villages. All the troubles must has been created by the petitioner in the year 1982. Merely because certain problems have been created because of the high handed action of the petitioner in the year 1982, the same would not be sufficient to include his name in the rowdy register, something more is required.

Be that as it may, the petitioner is aged 51 years. 30 years have elapsed after inclusion of his name in the rowdy register. Since 30 years no case is registered against him. According to him, he has got two daughters and he is doing business for his livelihood. He is presently residing at Mysore. Merely because he is/was involved in Raitha Sangha activities, he cannot be treated as rowdy or goonda. Therefore, impugned register Annexure-D insofar as it relates to petitioner is concerned is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, same stands quashed. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed.

Sd/-

JUDGE *mn/-

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court