IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION NO.9228/2015 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:
SHIVU YADAV S/O CHITTAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OCC: ADVOCATE R/o 6TH CROSS ROAD, IUDP LAYOUT CHITRADURGA TOWN CHITRADURGA-577 501 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: RAVINDRA B. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE SUPERINTENDENT POLICE CHITRADURGA DISTRICT CHITRADURGA-577 501 2. ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CHITRADURGA DISTRICT CHITRADURGA-577 501 3. POLICE INSPECTOR TOWN POLICE STATION CHITRADURGA-577 501 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: VASANTH V FERNANDES, HCGP ) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-3 TO DROP AND DELETE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN ROWDY SHEET LIST OF CHITRADURGA TOWN POLICE STATION, CHITRADURGA OPENED ON 29.12.2009 VIDE INFORMATION DT.19.06.2012 AT ANNEXURE-F AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner who is an advocate by profession filed the present writ petition for writ of mandamus to the 3rd respondent-Police Inspector, Chitradurga Town Police Station to drop and delete the name of the petitioner from the rowdy sheet list of Chitradurga Town Police Station, Chitradurga, opened on 29.12.2009 vide information dated 19.06.2012 in No.C/194/D.C.R.B./Chidu/2012 at Annexure-F and to quash the order dated 29.12.2009 passed by 2nd respondent-Assistant Superintendent of Police, Chitradurga in No.S.D.P.O/CTA/File-41/2009 at Annexure-F3 directing opening of rowdy sheet against the petitioner.
2. It is the case of the petitioner, that he is a practicing advocate in the Courts of Chitradurga District and he is also a social activist and an active member and also holding post in several organizations in and around Chitradurga, wherein the organization works for the welfare of the society. He had also agitated against the illegal mining taking place at Chitradurga District and had requested the respectable Officers to take action on illegal mining. It is further contended that in view of the active participation of the petitioner, there are certain ill-will between the petitioner and certain Government Officials. Infact the petitioner had lodged a complaint on 21.10.2009 in PCR No.231/2012 against one Shivram Reddy, Additional S.P. Chitradurga and others stating that he had been illegally detained him on 08.10.2009 and have mentally and physically harassed, abused and threatened him with dire consequences.
3. After investigation, the Police filed ‘B’ report against the petitioner and the petitioner had filed his objection and had given the sworn statement of himself and his witnesses and the said matter is still pending for adjudication. It is the further case of the petitioner that he had also filed a private complaint in PCR No.385/2009 before JMFC, Chitradurga on 31.12.2009 against Inspector, Balachandranaika, Rural Police Station, Chitradurga in respect of the incident taken place on 27-12-2009 and also in respect of false case registered against the petitioner. What happened to that PCR Number is not forthcoming in the present writ petition.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that in view of the above a complaint came to be filed against petitioner alleging the offence in Crime No.846/2009 on 27-12-2009 for the offence under Section 87 of Karnataka Police Act and charge sheet is filed and the petitioner stood for trial in respect of the said case before the I Addl. JMFC, Chitradurga.
5. After contest, I Addl. JMFC, made in C.C.No.155/2010 by judgment and order dated 28-10- 2013 acquitted the petitioner and the said order has reached finality. Thereafter, petitioner came to know that respondents had opened rowdy sheet in his name at Chitradurga Town Police Station. Therefore, he sought information through Right to Information Act in respect of the same. The Superintendent of Police by its endorsement dated 19-06-2009 issued information that rowdy sheet has been opened in the name of the petitioner in S.D.P.O/CTA/File-41/2009 by Assistant Superintendent of Police on 27-12-2009. Subsequently he applied for the copy of the same and accordingly he obtained the same as per Annexure-F3. Thereafter, petitioner came to know that 2nd respondent had opened rowdy sheet against petitioner without there being any ground made out under the provisions of Order 1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual. Hence, petitioner is before this Court for the relief sought for.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
7. Sri Ravindra B. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order passed by 2nd respondent opening rowdy sheet against the petitioner is erroneous which is contrary to the material on record and without any basis. Hence, it is liable to be quashed. He would further contend that the petitioner is a practicing advocate and a social activist. Merely because he sort out certain social issues of the general public, is not a ground to open a rowdy sheet as envisaged under Order 1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual. The entire action of the respondents-Police is nothing but mis-use of their powers and to take vengeance against the petitioner. Therefore, he submits that impugned order cannot be sustained.
8. He would further contend that by careful reading of the entire order dated 27.12.2009 passed by 2nd respondent–Assistant Superintendent of Police, clearly depicts that except some statement made before the Deputy Commissioner and before the Police Officer, there is nothing on record for the authorities to proceed to register Rowdy sheet against the petitioner as envisaged under Order 1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual or under Section 87 of the Karnataka Police Act. Hence, there is no reason to open a rowdy sheet against the petitioner and therefore he sought to allow the writ petition with costs.
9. Per contra, Sri Vasanth V. Fernandes, the learned HCGP sought to justify the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent and contended that petitioner being an advocate, he has some responsibility towards the society and he should not act as an ordinary person, being a protector of law, should not create law and order problem in the society. Taking advantage of his profession as an advocate, he was doing illegal activities. In order to curb the illegal acts of the petitioner and to maintain peace in the society, the 2nd respondent had opened rowdy sheet against the petitioner. He further contended that being an advocate, petitioner should have maintain some dignity in the society and should not unnecessarily involve in any illegal acts which disturb the law and order and should not make unnecessary accusation against the responsible Police Officers. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the writ petition.
10. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the entire material on record carefully.
11. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for consideration in the writ petition is:-
“Whether, the second respondent is justified in opening rowdy sheet against the petitioner by impugned order dated 27.12.2009 made in S.D.P.O/CTA/File- 41/2009 in the facts and circumstances of the present case?”
12. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a practicing advocate and has filed PCR No.231/2012 against one Shivram Reddy, Additional S.P. Chitradurga and others stating that he had been illegally detained on 08.10.2009 and have mentally, physically harassed, abused and threatened with dire consequences. The Police filed ‘B’ report against the petitioner and the petitioner filed his objection to the said ‘B’ report and the said matter is still pending for adjudication. It is not in dispute that subsequently, petitioner filed a private complaint in PCR No.385/2009 before JMFC, Chitradurga on 31.12.2009 against Inspector, Balachandranaika, Rural Police Station, Chitradurga in respect of the incident taken place on 27- 12-2009 and also with regard to the false case registered against the petitioner.
13. The material on record clearly depicts that a criminal case came to be registered against the petitioner on 27.12.2009 at 6.00 p.m. in Crime No.846/2009 on the file of the Chitradurga Rural Police Station alleging offence under Section 87 of Karnataka Police Act. After contest, the I Addl. JMFC, Chitradurga in C.C.No.155/2010 by its judgment and order dated 28.10.2013 acquitted the petitioner holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the petitioner under Section 87 of the Karnataka Police Act and the said order passed by the Learned Magistrate has reached finality.
14. In view of the above said facts, it clearly depicts that there is a case and counter case filed by the petitioner and the Police Officers. Second PCR filed by the petitioner was on 31.12.2009 against inspector Balachandranaiaka, Rural Police Station, Chitradurga in respect of the incident that took place on 27.12.2009. On the very same day, the Rural Police, Chitradurga also registered a case against the petitioner at 6.00 p.m. in crime No.846/2009 which is ended with acquittal as stated supra.
15. Very strangely on the basis of the crime registered on 27.12.2009 in Crime No.846/2009, the 2nd respondent proceeded to open a rowdy sheet on the ground that the petitioner along with 70 to 80 people surrounded the Deputy Commissioner and misbehaved with the Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner of Police and the Police have registered a case in Crime No. 846/2009 under Section 87 of the Police Act and accordingly under Order 1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual, opened rowdy sheet against the petitioner.
16. A careful perusal of the impugned order dated 27.12.2009 clearly depicts that 2nd respondent proceeded to open rowdy sheet only on the basis of the crime registered in Crime No.846/2009 dated 27.12.2009 which is ended in acquittal. It is very strange attitude of the Police Officers that, when a case came to be registered on 27.12.2009 at 6.00 p.m. against the petitioner, on the very same day a rowdy sheet is opened, but no time is mentioned.
17. A careful reading of the provisions of Section 87 of the Karnataka Police Act, the Police Officer registered a case against the petitioner in Crime No.846/2009 which clearly depicts the offence of gambling in public, but it is not the case of the petitioner, that the petitioner involved in the activities as contemplated under the provision of Section 87 of the Karnataka Police Act. In the absence of any material, Police Officer has registered a case under Section 87 of the Karnataka Police Act is not a ground to open rowdy sheet under Order 1059 of Karnataka Police Manual which reads as under:
REGISTER OF ROWDIES “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;
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 dew 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 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 he 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 made 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 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 I.P.C. (This is a cognizable offence);
(iii) Prosecution for riotous and indecent behaviour, drunkenness, etc., under Sections 92 (o), (p) 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 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.
18. The said provision clearly depicts that Police registered a case under Section 87 of the Karnataka Police Act against the petitioner in Crime No.846/2009, which does not attract the provisions of Order 1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual to open a rowdy sheet against the petitioner. Therefore, opening of rowdy sheet by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner cannot be sustained and 2nd respondent-Assistant Superintendent of Police being a responsible Police Officer, based on personal vengeance should not mis-use his power and the Police Officer should act only in accordance with law. The material on record clearly depicts that respondents have not made out any ground to open a rowdy sheet against the petitioner. Admittedly the petitioner is a practicing advocate in Chitradurga district naturally he will raise his voice of words, but that should not be the ground for opening rowdy sheet. In view of the Crime registered against the petitioner in Crime No.846/2009 on 27-12-2009 for the offence under Section 87 of the Karnataka Police Act has also ended in acquittal by the order dated 28.10.2013 and the said order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate reached finality. Therefore, the point raised in the writ petition has to be answered in the negative holding that the 2nd respondent is not justified in opening a rowdy sheet against the petitioner who is a practicing advocate which is detrimental to his legal profession.
19. It is also relevant to state that right to practice as advocate under Section 27 of Advocates Acts, 1961 cannot be mis-used by the petitioner and if any mis- conduct is proved, it is for the Karnataka Bar Council to take disciplinary action against the petitioner under Section 35 of the Advocates Act. The learned Advocate has to maintain some discipline in professional life and he cannot unnecessarily indulge himself in unnecessary litigations or should not take personal vengeance which harm social reforms of the society. Therefore, it is hereby directed the petitioner to mend his ways and concentrate on his profession career without giving further room to the Police Officer to open a rowdy sheet against him.
20. For the reasons stated above, writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent vide order dated 27.12.2009 opening rowdy sheet made in S.D.P.O/CTA/File-41/2009 is hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE HR