Karnataka High Court
Domlur Sreenivas Reddy vs State Of Karnataka on 13 August, 2014
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N. Venugopala Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO.37261/2012 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
DOMLUR SREENIVAS REDDY
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
S/O. SRI MUNIHANUMAPPA REDDY
R/AT NO.655, 2ND MAIN
DOMLUR LAYOUT
BANGALORE 560 071.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI S.G. MUNISWAMY GOWDA, ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
HOME DEPARTMENT, VEEDHANA VEEDHI
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
NO.1, INFANTRY ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (SOUTH)
HALASURU
BANGALORE - 560 008.
4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
HALASURU POLICE STATION
BANGALORE - 560 008.
2
5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
HALASURU SUB-DIVISION
HALASURU
BANGALORE - 560 008.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R. OM KUMAR, AGA)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR SUCH OTHER
APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDERS OR DIRECTION QUASHING
THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2011 PASSED BY 5TH RESPONDENT
VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO
FORTHWITH REMOVE/DELETE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER
FROM THE ROWDY REGISTER MAINTAINED BY THE HALASURU
POLICE STATION IF ALREADY ENTERED AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner, a native and permanent resident of Bangalore, is working as Joint Supervisor in Bharath Earth Movers Limited, drawing salary of `47,076/-. He was a Treasurer of BEML Co-operative Society Limited and now is its Director. His wife Smt. Geetha, is a Councilor of Domlur Ward, BBMP. He is a Joint Secretary of Domlur Layout Residents Welfare Association, elected in the meeting held on 17.06.2002.
3
2. On a complaint filed by one Nirmal Prasad of Turf Club, Bangalore, a case in Cr.No.199/2011, under Sections 448, 341, 143, 147, 506 r/w Sec. 149 of IPC was registered at Halasuru Police Station, against the petitioner and others. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed in C.C.No.22824/2012, on the file of the X ACMM, Bangalore.
3. Earlier, NCR.No.397/2010 was registered against the mother-in-law of the petitioner. After enquiry, the said case was closed.
4. With reference to Cr.No.199/2011 and NCR.No.397/2010, a report having been submitted, the 5th respondent directed opening of 'rowdy sheet' vide Annexure-F, against the petitioner. Seeking quashing of Annexure-F and for grant of consequential reliefs, this writ petition was filed on 11.09.2012.
5. Statement of objections was filed on behalf of the respondents. No other materials were placed by the learned AGA for consideration of the Court. 4
6. At the outset, Sri S.G.Muniswamy Gowda, learned advocate submitted that the petitioner gives up the prayer at column (iii) with regard to payment of compensation of `25,00,000/- claimed as damages suffered by him. He submitted that the petitioner confines the consideration of this writ petition only with regard to the legality of the order of the 5th respondent, as at Annexure-F.
7. Heard learned counsel on both sides and perused the writ record. Point for consideration is, whether opening of rowdy sheet or inclusion of the name of the petitioner in rowdy list is justified?
8. Only case sought to be made out against the petitioner in the counter filed on behalf of the respondents is, that C.C.No.22824/2012 is pending and since the petitioner is moving with rowdies, against whom criminal cases have been registered and that his presence along with those rowdies would create fearness and a situation which would help the petitioner and other rowdy people in 5 involving in extortion and creating nuisance. According to the respondents, action taken against the petitioner was to prevent any further illegal action and for avoiding disruption of peace and tranquility in the area. The respondents contend that the petitioner would create a situation, wherein people would avoid coming forward to file complaint against him and his henchmen, which necessitated the issuance of order, as at Annexure-F.
9. As already observed, the respondents have not placed any record in justification of the statements made in the counter filed. The statements made in the counter and sought to be urged for consideration by the learned AGA are bald and lacking in material particulars. Learned AGA, when called upon to produce records, if any, in possession of the respondents, to know the veracity of the statements made in the counter, submitted that, for the present, there are no other cases other than C.C.No.22824/2012, against the petitioner. 6
10. Order No.1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual, do not empower the police to open rowdy sheet, on a person against whom a criminal case is registered. It is only, on the grounds enumerated therein, rowdy sheet can be opened and name of person, involving in such activity, may be included in the rowdy list.
11. In the instant case, respondents failed to produce any materials which would connect the petitioner with the grounds enumerated in order No.1059. Therefore, there is no lawful basis to open rowdy sheet and include the petitioner's name in the rowdy list and hence, the impugned order is unsustainable. Mere registration of a criminal case and or its pendency, cannot be used as a weapon to include the name of a person in the rowdy list, inasmuch as, rowdy sheet against a person can be opened, only if the situation demands vis-à-vis, the grounds enumerated in Order No.1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual.
7
In view of the above, writ petition is allowed in part. Annexure-F is quashed and the petitioner's name is directed to be deleted, for the present, from the rowdy list. However, it is made clear that this order would not come in the way of the respondents opening rowdy sheet and including the petitioner's name in the rowdy list, in case it becomes necessary to open rowdy sheet and include the name of the petitioner in the rowdy list i.e., if the petitioner's action falls within the definition of "rowdy" appearing in Clause (1) of Order No.1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE ca