IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.53022/2017 (GM – POLICE) BETWEEN:
Sri. Kempegowda, S/o. Kalashanaiah, Aged 65 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Garagadakuppe, Hebbur Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk & District – 572 101. (By Sri. M.B. Chandra Chooda, Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka, Dept. of Home and Legal Affairs, Rep. by its Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. The Superintendent of Police, Tumakuru District, Tumakuru – 572 126.
3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tumakuru District, Tumakuru – 572 126.
… Petitioner 4. The Circle Inspector of Police, Kyatasandra, Tumakuru District – 572 127.
5. The Inspector of Police, Hebbur Police Station, Hebbur, Tumakuru District – 572 120. (By Sri. M. Vinod Kumar, AGA) .... Respondents This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the endorsement dated 07.11.2017 issued by respondent No.5 vide Annexure – G and direct to respondent Nos.2 to 5 to remove the name of the petitioner from the Rowdy list maintained by them in the interest of justice and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner in the above writ petition sought for writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 7.11.2017 issued by respondent No.5 vide Annexure-G and to issue writ of mandamus to respondent Nos.2 to 5 to remove the name of the petitioner from the rowdy list maintained by them.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a permanent resident of Garagadakuppe Village, Hebbur Hobli, Tumakuru District and he is an agriculturist by profession and he has not involved in any anti social activities and has not been convicted for any offence by the competent Court of law. The petitioner and his family members are from respectable family and have no criminal antecedents and have not involved in any criminal offence.
3. It is further contended that one of the person intentionally has filed false complaint against the petitioner with respondent No.5. The Respondent No.5 based on the complaint dated 12.07.2015, filed charge sheet against the petitioner in Crime No.335/2015 for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 354B, 436, 448, 149 of IPC and Section 3(1)(10)(11) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The respondent No.5 based on one more complaint dated 15.10.2016, filed charge sheet in Special CC No.175/2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 506, 504 R/w Section 149 and Section 3(1)(10) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The said two cases are pending for adjudication before the District and sessions Judge at Tumakuru. The respondent No.5 without any justification whatsoever, has recommended the name of the petitioner to be included in the rowdy list and has opened the rowdy sheet in the records maintained. Though there were no allegations or involvement of the petitioner in any of the criminal case, in order to harass the petitioner, respondent No.5 recommended and opened rowdy sheet against the petitioner.
4. It is further contended that the respondent No.5 without disclosing anything, arrested the petitioner on 13.07.2017 from his house and he has taken to the Executive Magistrate with regard to the registration of the crime under Section 110(e)(g) of the Cr.P.C and he was not informed about the registration of the case and he was simply taken to the Taluk Executive Magistrate and asked to sign the document before the Taluk Executive Magistrate. The petitioner was surprised for the purpose for which he was taken to the Taluk Executive Magistrate. Thereafter, respondent No.5 without any reason taken the petitioner to the police station and he has been made to sit in the police station from morning till evening. The respondent No.5 without there being any case against the petitioner, harassed and subjected the petitioner for mental cruelty. On verification, the petitioner came to know that he has been rowdy sheeted by respondent No.5. When the petitioner applied for certified copy of the rowdy sheet, the respondent No.5 issued an endorsement dated 07.11.2017 refusing to furnish the details stating that the information sought attracts the provisions of Section 8(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 which is required to be maintained secretly and stated that the petitioner can approach the First Appellate Authority under Section 19(1) of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court for the relief sought for.
5. The State Government filed objections and produced Annexure – R1 rowdy sheet dated 23.06.2017 wherein, sanction was accorded to open a rowdy sheet against the petitioner and contended that presently the petitioner has involved in two pending cases and earlier he was registered as a rowdy sheeter on 12.01.2010 and subsequently, his name was removed from the said list. It appears that the petitioner has deliberately suppressed several facts before the Court in order to get a favourable order. It is further contended that despite of attempts made to make the petitioner to understand not to engage in unlawful activities, he has engaged in criminal activities repeatedly, cases are registered against him in the Hebbur Police Station. Therefore, the name of the petitioner is included in the rowdy sheet, same is in accordance with law. Therefore, sought to dismiss the present writ petition.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner is an agriculturist and permanent resident of Garadadakuppe Village, Hebbur Hobli, Tumakuru District. According to the petitioner, he has not involved in any anti social activities either himself or any of his family members. The respondent No.5 on the basis of false complaint made against the petitioner, registered two criminal cases which are pending for adjudication. He was unnecessarily taken to the Executive Magistrate. When he applied for certified copy of the rowdy sheet, the impugned endorsement dated 07.11.2017 as per Annexure-G came to be issued. In the very endorsement issued by the respondent No.5, the only reason assigned is that in terms of the provisions prescribed under Order 1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual, 1956, the information sought cannot be disclosed and the information sought attracts Section 18(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 and the petitioner can approach the appellate authority under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act. Very curiously, statement of objections are filed and the respondents produced rowdy sheet as per Annexure-R1 dated 23.06.2017. In all fairness, the respondent No.5 instead of refusing to furnish the information sought, ought to have furnished Annexure- R1 to the petitioner, giving reasons for inclusion of his name in the rowdy sheet. The endorsement is issued, ignoring the very provisions of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. No person can be deprived of getting information when rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner and the respondent No.5 cannot deny the information. Ultimately now respondent No.5 produced Annexure-R1 before this Court.
7. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed off. The impugned endorsement issued by respondent No.5 as per Annexure-G dated 07.11.2017 cannot be sustained and the same is hereby quashed.
8. So far prayer No.3 is concerned, direction to respondent Nos.2 to 5 to remove the name of the petitioner from the rowdy list maintained by them cannot be issued without there being any demand. It is for the petitioner to approach the competent authority/respondent No.5 by appropriate representation, if such representation is made, it is for the respondent No.2 to consider the representation and to take appropriate action to remove the name of the petitioner from the rowdy sheet maintained by them after following the procedure as contemplated under the provisions of order 1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual, 1956 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE PN/