Karnataka High Court
Smt. P. Vijayalakshmi vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 August, 2017
Author: Vineet Kothari
Bench: Vineet Kothari
1/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
W.P.Nos.46524-46525/2016 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN
1. SMT. P. VIJAYALAKSHMI
W/O SHRI V. LOKESH
AGED MAJOR
R/AT NO.186, 1ST MAIN
2ND CROSS, RAJAJINAGAR
BANGALORE.
2. SHRI V. LOKESH
S/O SHRI R. VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT NO.186, 1ST MAIN
2ND CROSS, RAJAJINAGAR
BANGALORE.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI M.S. SHYAMSUNDAR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
Date of order : 10.08.2017 in WP Nos.46524-46525/2016
P. Vijayalakshmi & Another.
vs.
The State of Karnataka and Others.
2/7
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
OFFICE OF DGP, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
BANGALORE CITY
OFFICE OF POLICE COMMISSIONER
INFANTRY ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 002.
4. THE REGISTRAR
KARNATAKA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
4TH FLOOR, 5TH STAGE
MULTISTORIED BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001.
5. THE SHO
KENGERI POLICE STATION
BANGALORE.
5(a). THE SHO
RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR POLICE STATION
BANGALORE.
5(b). THE SHO
RAJAGOPALNAGAR P.S.
BANGALORE.
5(c). CCB (OCW)
BANGALORE.
(RESPONDENTS 5 TO 5(c) IMPLEADED
V/C/O DTD: 4.10.2016)
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3
SRI NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
Date of order : 10.08.2017 in WP Nos.46524-46525/2016
P. Vijayalakshmi & Another.
vs.
The State of Karnataka and Others.
3/7
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT POLICE DEPARTMENT TO CONSIDER
THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONERS TO REMOVE THE NAME OF
THE 2ND PETITIONER FROM THE HISTORY SHEET/ROWDY SHEET
MAINTAINED AGAINST HIM IN ONE OR MORE POLICE STATIONS
UNDER THE CONTROL AND JURISDICTION OF THE
RESPONDENTS AND LAWFULLY ACT UPON THE SAME; DIRECT
THE RESPONDENTS TO NOT INTERFERE WITH THE LIFE AND
LIBERTY OF THE PETITIONERS OR THEIR CHILDREN IN ANY
MANNER INCLUDING THE SURPRISE TRESPASSES AND NIGHT
VIGIL VISITS ETC.,
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Mr. M.S. Shyamsundar, Adv. for Petitioners. Smt. Prathima Honnapura, AGA for Respondents 1 to 3. Mr. Nitin Prasad, Adv. for R4.
These petitions have been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers:
"a) Issue an appropriate writ or order or direction directing the respondent Police Department to consider the request of the Date of order : 10.08.2017 in WP Nos.46524-46525/2016 P. Vijayalakshmi & Another.
vs. The State of Karnataka and Others.
4/7 petitioners to remove the name of the 2nd petitioner from the History sheet/rowdy sheet maintained against him in one or more police stations under the control and jurisdiction of the respondents and lawfully act upon the same.
b) Issue an appropriate writ or order or direction directing the respondents to not interfere with the life and liberty of the petitioners or their children in any manner including the surprise trespasses and night vigil visits etc.,
c) Pass such other orders or directions deems fit to be passed in favour of the petitioner under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."
2. The grievance raised by the petitioners is that the name of the 2nd petitioner has been wrongly entered in the Rowdy Sheet maintained under Order 1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual and the representation made to the higher Authority of the Police Department has not been considered and disposed of by the concerned Authority and the petitioners rights are prejudicially affected by such entry in the Rowdy Sheet maintained Date of order : 10.08.2017 in WP Nos.46524-46525/2016 P. Vijayalakshmi & Another.
vs. The State of Karnataka and Others.
5/7 under the aforesaid Order 1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual.
3. After hearing the learned counsels, in the considered opinion of this Court, this Court considers that interference in the impugned entry in the Rowdy Sheet maintained under the aforesaid Order 1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual, at this stage by this Court would be premature and since each case essentially involves an enquiry into the facts and application of mind by the concerned Authorities of the Police Department to decide whether the name of the 2nd petitioner deserves to be entered in the Rowdy Sheet or not and whether with the change of circumstances the same deserves to be removed from the said Sheet or not.
4. It is considered appropriate therefore that the present petitioners may make their detailed representations to the higher Authorities of the Police Department namely, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Date of order : 10.08.2017 in WP Nos.46524-46525/2016 P. Vijayalakshmi & Another.
vs. The State of Karnataka and Others.
6/7 Bengaluru and the said Authority shall decide such representation after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners by a detailed speaking order meeting all the points raised by the petitioners separately in such order to be passed by the said Authority.
5. A period of two months from the date of first appearance of the petitioners before the said Authority is allowed to the said Respondent to pass a speaking and detailed reasoned order meeting all the points raised by the petitioners separately in accordance with law.
6. It is needless to say that if any adverse order is passed against the petitioners, the petitioners will be free to avail the legal remedy against such order in accordance with law, including by way of Complaint under Section 20-C of the Karnataka Police Act before the State Police Complaints Authority.
Date of order : 10.08.2017 in WP Nos.46524-46525/2016 P. Vijayalakshmi & Another.
vs. The State of Karnataka and Others.
7/7
7. The petitioners, in the first instance may appear before the said Respondent - Deputy Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru, on 06/09/2017.
8. Accordingly, the present petitions are disposed of. No costs.
9. Copy of this order be sent to the Respondents forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE ca