Karnataka High Court
Ravi vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 January, 2026
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:693
WP No. 204059 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO.204059 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
RAVI S/O MAULAPPA MADANKAR,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: FARMER,
R/O BATTARAGA, TQ. ALAND,
DIST. KALABURAGI,
NOW AT CIB COLONY, KALABURAGI-585103.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI GURURAJ V. HASILKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHAN SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560001.
Digitally signed
by RENUKA
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
Location: HIGH KALABURAGI-585101.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
(SP) KALABURAGI-585105.
4. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
(DSP) DIST. ALAND-585302.
5. THE PSI, NIMBARGA PS, ALAND,
TQ. ALAND, DIST. KALABURAGI-585213.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIRANAGOUDA M. BIRADAR, AGA)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:693
WP No. 204059 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE THE WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER OF OPENING ROWDY SHEETER REGISTERED
NO.519/MISC/ASD/2016 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.5
AGAINST THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-C.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:
"Therefore, it is most humbly prayed that, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to:
(a) To issue the Writ in Nature of CERTIORARI and Quash the impugned order of open Rowdy sheeter registered No.519/Misc/ASD/2016 issued by the Respondent No.5, against the petitioner vide Annexure - C. OR
(b) To Issue any other directions to the respondents as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of case"-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:693 WP No. 204059 of 2025 HC-KAR
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a farmer and a respectable person in the society, doing agricultural work. He has been falsely implicated in the case on a fabricated story which he has challenged. He contends that a false case in Crime No.49 of 2016 of Nimbarga Police Station was lodged against the petitioner in which a charge sheet came to be filed by the jurisdictional police before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi in Sessions Case No.73 of 2017. After trial, the petitioner has been acquitted vide judgment dated 13.08.2019.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.5 has opened a rowdy sheet and registered the name of the petitioner in the said rowdy sheet despite the petitioner being acquitted in the aforementioned case. Hence, a representation was made by the petitioner dated 08.10.2025 to remove his name from the rowdy sheet, as the charges leveled against him are omnibus and no specific allegations were made against him, nor is any -4- NC: 2026:KHC-K:693 WP No. 204059 of 2025 HC-KAR material available to register the name of the petitioner in the rowdy sheet. It is also contended by the learned counsel that respondent No.5 has not followed the necessary 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. Therefore, he contends that implicating the petitioner and registering his name in the rowdy sheet is illegal and violative of principles of natural justice and the guidelines issued in the case of Sri B. S. Prakash (supra). Hence, the same requires to be removed and consequently quashed. It is further contented that despite the representation made and having produced a copy of the acquittal against the petitioner, in the aforementioned case, the same has not been considered. Hence, the petitioner is perforced to approach this Court, invoking the writ jurisdiction.
4. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate representing respondent-State contends that no doubt, the petitioner has been acquitted in the -5- NC: 2026:KHC-K:693 WP No. 204059 of 2025 HC-KAR aforementioned case, but the name of the petitioner was included in the Rowdy Sheet Register prior to acquittal and also question of following the guidelines laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri B. S. Prakash (supra) would not arise for the reason that inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the Rowdy Sheet Register is prior to the said judgment. Hence the same will not enure to his benefit. Accordingly, he seeks to dismiss the petition.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
6. 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 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 -6- NC: 2026:KHC-K:693 WP No. 204059 of 2025 HC-KAR 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 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, -7- NC: 2026:KHC-K:693 WP No. 204059 of 2025 HC-KAR 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, he has been framed, in which also the petitioner has been acquitted in the year 2019. It is also contended that though the petitioner has made a representation to the respondent authorities after the acquittal on 18.09.2020, 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.
7. It would be relevant to extract paragraph No.17 of the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of K. M. Muniswamy Reddy v. State of Karantaka reported in ILR 1992 KAR 2543, wherein the Division -8- NC: 2026:KHC-K:693 WP No. 204059 of 2025 HC-KAR Bench dealt with similar subject matter, which reads as under:
"17. There can be no doubt that if any of the Fundamental Right is to be affected by the State action, it has to be authorised by law, in the sense of a law enacted by the Legislature or to be authorised by a subordinate/delegated legislation, like Rules and Regulations. However, if no Fundamental Right is adversely affected by the enforcement of Order No.1059, State is entitled to act upon it, even in case, the said order has no statutory source. On facts, we found that, a reading of Order No.1059 nowhere suggests vesting of an intruding power in the Police Department. enabling the latter to invade any of the Fundamental Rights of the rowdy-sheeted person. The maintenance of rowdy sheet in respect of a suspected person having tendency to commit criminal offence or disturb public peace, is to enable the police to speedy action in cases of breach of public peace; it provides the information of the persons to be watched by the law enforcing agency of the State and nothing more."
11. Standing order No.1059 of Karnataka Police Manual, 1998 is extracted below:
"1059. (1) A rowdy may be defined as a goonda and includes a hooligan, rough, 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;-9-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:693 WP No. 204059 of 2025 HC-KAR
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) Disorderly conduct;
f) Rioting; and
g) Snatching and committing robbery (3) In every Police Station, a 'Register of Rowdies' should be maintained in Form No.100 in three parts viz., Part A, Part B and Part C which should be in separate Volumes. All the volumes are to be treated as confidential records.
(4) (a) Names and particulars of 'Confirmed Rowdies' who are residents in the Police Station concerned should be entered in the Register Part A, a few pages being allotted for each person.
(b) Names and particulars of 'Confirmed Rowdies' who are not residents in the Police Station limits but operate within its jurisdiction and names of 'Homeless Confirmed Rowdies' should be entered in Part B, a few pages being allotted for every person.
(c) Names and particulars of "Novices" who are budding goondas should be entered in Part C. They may be either residents or non-residents of the Police Station concerned.
(5) Prior Orders of the Superintendent of Police or the Sub-Divisional Police Officer should be obtained for entering the name of every rowdy in the Register of Rowdies (6) Names of persons against whom there are ample instances of rowdyism should be entered in the
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:693 WP No. 204059 of 2025 HC-KAR Register Part A or Part B after the records are checked by the Inspector.
(7) When there are one or more instances of rowdyism against any person or if he has a very bad reputation in the locality as a bully, his name entered in Part 'C' on the ground of very bad reputation, a through enquiry should be made by the Officer in charge of the Police Station before the entry is made.
(8) in the running history, all the Criminal activities of the rowdy including reasonable suspicion of his complicity in cases and/or complaints against him with case numbers, if any, and results of cases, etc., should be mentioned in separate paragraphs which should be numbered chronologically. Against each entry in the running history, there should be reference to Station House Diary entries, case diaries, source reports, mass petitions, petty cases, etc., as the case may be.
(9) Officers incharge of Police Stations should, in the course of their daily scrutiny of the entries in the Station House Diary and the petty cases Register, satisfy themselves that relevant notes therefrom have been made and embodied in the 'Rowdy Register' against the rowdies concerned. Before despatching the copy of the Station House Diary to the Circle Inspector/SDPO, a note of having embodied the information in the rowdy register against the relevant entries, should be made. (10) Supervisory officers, during their inspections of Police Stations, should satisfy themselves that the entries have been properly made.
(11) When the activities of a non-resident rowdy comes to notice, the Officer in charge of the Police Station concerned should not only make necessary entries in Part 'B' of the Rowdy Register but also promptly transmit information to the Officer in charge of the Police Station in the limits of which the
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:693 WP No. 204059 of 2025 HC-KAR rowdy resides, to enable the latter to make necessary entries in Part 'A' of the Rowdy Register of his Police Station.
(12) When the Part 'C' rowdies indulge frequently in rowdy and anti-social acts, their names should be transferred from Part 'C' or 'B', as the case may be, of the Rowdy Register. When there is no entry against a Part 'C' rowdy during the period of one year from the date of entry of his name in the Register, his name may be struck off from the Register by the Officer in charge of the Police Station concerned in consultation with the Circle Inspector. (13) No name should be struck off from Part 'A' or Part 'B' of the Rowdy Register without the order in writing of the Superintendent of Police. In such cases, the Inspectors should send their recommendations to Superintendent of Police through the Sub-Divisional Police Officers. (14) The Inspectors should maintain in their offices, the entire lists of the names of rowdies with their addresses which are on record in the Rowdy Register of the Police Station under their charge. The lists should be maintained Police Station-wise and maintained separately for each type of rowdies. The Inspectors should once in a quarter, check up their own lists with the Rowdy Registers of the Police Stations under them.
(15) Under the existing laws, a rowdy can be dealt with in the following ways:
(i) Prosecution in specific cases, like robbery, rioting, grievous hurt, etc.,
(ii) Prosecution in appropriate cases for obscene acts and songs under Section 294 L.P.C. (This is a cognizable offence);
(iii) Prosecution for riotous and indecent behaviour, drunkenness, etc., under Sections
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:693 WP No. 204059 of 2025 HC-KAR 92 (o), (p), (q) and (r) of the Karnataka Police Act 1963, in the areas to which the provisions of that Section have been extended:
(iv) Action under Section 108 (b) of the code of Criminal Procedure;
(v) Action under Section 107 Cr. P.C.
(vi) Action under Section 110 Cr. P.C.
(vii) Action under the preventive detention laws;
viii) Externment proceedings under Section 55 and 56 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963; and
(ix) Action under Section 509 I.P.C. for eve-
teasing:
(16) Every information that any particular Tea Stall, Restaurant, Eating House or Bar is the resort of rowdies and other types of anti-social elements, when received should promptly be verified and if found correct, the office-in-charge of the Police Station should suitably warn the proprietor/keeper of the Tea-Stall, Restaurant, etc..
(17) With a view to facilitating identification of the rowdies by face, the Officer in charge of the Police Station should, during the roll call, show to the Station Staff recent photographs of the rowdies. He should instruct them to watch their movements and collect information about their activities.
(18) List of persons bound down under Section 106 or under Section 117 of the code of criminal procedure should be maintained in the Police Station with the names and address of the sureties in the following columns:-
1) Sl. No.
2) Name and address of the complainant
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:693 WP No. 204059 of 2025 HC-KAR
3) Gist of the complaint with date and place of occurrence.
4) Names and addresses of persons with aliases bound down.
5) Period for which bound down.
6) Order of the Magistrate with date.
7) Names and address of the sureties.
8) Remarks.
(19) If during the period a person is bound over, there are complaints against him, an immediate enquiry should be made and if the complaints are found to be true, the court should be moved for taking action against the person and the sureties."
12. 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, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has made out a valid case to consider favourably. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:693 WP No. 204059 of 2025 HC-KAR ii. The impugned order of opening Rowdy Sheet Register in the name of the petitioner bearing No.519/Misc/ASD/2016 dated 11.08.2016 issued by the respondent No.5, 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 RSP/NJ LIST NO.: 4 SL NO.: 1 CT:SI