IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.26706/2018(GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:
SRI NUTHAN M. AGED 37 YEARS, S/O MAHADEVAIAH R/O NO.8/A, 4TH MAIN 10TH CROSS, ALANAHALLI LAYOUT, MYSURU -570 028.
MYSORE DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER (BY SRI M. KRISHNAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVENMENT HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001.
2 . THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE MYSORE CITY, MYSURU-570 011.
3 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE MYSURU-570 011.
4 . THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR, LAW & ORDER NAZARBAD POLICE STATION, NAZARBAD, MYSURU-570 010.
5 . THE POLICE INSPECTOR ALANAHALLI POLICE STATION, MYSURU CITY-570 010. MYSORE DISTRICT.
(BY SRI M. VINODKUMAR, AGA) … …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.3.2018 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT-2 AS AT ANNEXURE-H AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REMOVE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER FROM THE “B” ROWDY REGISTER SHEET MAINTAINED IN THE RESPONDENTS-4 AND 5 POLICE STATION AND ALSO TO REMOVE HIS PHOTOGRAPH DISPLAYED IN THE SAID POLICE STATIONS ROWDY REGISTER.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This is a second round of litigation, where the petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned endorsement dated 21.3.2018 issued by the 2nd respondent as per Annexure-H and to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to remove the name of the petitioner from the ‘B’ Rowdy Register Sheet maintained in respondent Nos.4 and 5 – Police Station and also to remove his photograph displayed in the said Police Stations Rowdy Register.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a B.E. Graduate residing permanently in the address shown in the cause title. He is the Ex. APMC Member and his mother is a sitting Member of the Varuna Zilla Panchayath, Mysore District. He is a social and active Member of the B.J.P. Political Party, helping the poor and needy people in the locality in getting their works done with regard to Ration Cards, Pension to the Widow and aged persons in the concerned Departments of the Government and if there are any arbitrary and illegal actions of the Police against the innocent persons, the same will be attended by approaching the higher police authorities. When the things stood thus, two criminal cases have been registered by the Nazarbad Police against him - one on 26.1.2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 148, 448, 427, 324, 354, 506, 307 r/w Section 149 IPC in Crime No. 17/2013 and another on 31.1.2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 384, 511, 506 r/w 34 of IPC in Crime No.36/2015 respectively. In Crime No. 17/2013, after committal, the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Mysuru by the order dated 22nd April 2017 passed in S.C. No.33/2014 has acquitted him and others. The said judgment and order has reached finality.
3. It is his further case of the petitioner that in respect of Crime No.36/2015 stated supra, under the Right to Information Act before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class (III Court), Mysuru, he applied for a copy of the Rowdy Sheet opened against him and also the reasons on which he was treated as rowdy and the Judicial Magistrate by the order dated 20.6.2017 while issuing notice to the complainant, called out the case, but neither the petitioner was present nor any objections were raised. Hence, ‘B’ report was accepted. The said order passed by the learned Magistrate, First Class has reached finality.
4. Subsequently, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents-authorities concerned on 22.9.2017 along with documents requesting deletion of his name in the Register of Rowdy Sheet. Since the same was not considered, he approached this Court in W.P.No.1657/2018 seeking a direction to the respondent to remove his name from the ‘B’ Rowdy Register Sheet maintained in respondent Nos.4 and 5. This Court after hearing both parties by the order dated 23rd January 2018 disposed off the writ petition and directed respondent No.2 to secure necessary details from respondent Nos.4 and 5, verify the same and to take a decision in the matter and convey the same to the petitioner expeditiously, but not later than two months from the date of the representation made by the petitioner. Inspite of the said order passed by this Court, acquittal of the petitioner and ‘B’ report filed before the learned Sessions Judge and the Magistrate, the respondents have not removed the name of the petitioner from the Rowdy Sheet and therefore, he was once again forced to make representation on 5.2.2018 before the 2nd respondents, who has issued the impugned endorsement dated 21.3.2018 stating that on the basis of the report submitted by PSI Devaraja Sub- Division, the Rowdy Sheet opened against the petitioner is continued. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.
5. The respondents-State Government has filed statement of objections to the main writ petition contending that the entry of the name of the petitioner in the Rowdy Register is kept in secret and it is only for the respondents consumption to facilitate to maintain law and order and with an intention to keep surveillance on the petitioner’s activities and to prevent unlawful or illegal activities of the petitioner. Therefore the same is continued from time to time.
6. It is further contended that the superior authorities of respondent Nos.4 and 5, review the entries in the Rowdy Register every year and the same is ordered to be continued, keeping in mind the activities of the petitioner and merely continuing the name of the petitioner in the Rowdy Register would not affect his right. It is further contended that the authorities have satisfied themselves after entering the name of the petitioner in the Rowdy Register and have continued the same. If the petitioner’s name is removed from the rowdy register, he is likely to commit an offence, which is punishable under different law and there is always likelihood of petitioner indulging in taking law into his hand by disturbing public peace and tranquility. Therefore, the impugned endorsement issued by the 2nd respondent is just and proper. It is further contended that the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the petitioner along with other accused persons in Crime No.17/2013 only on the ground that the prosecution witnesses have failed to support the case of the prosecution and hence benefit of doubt is given to the accused and that itself is not a ground to remove the name of the petitioner in the Rowdy Register. It is also contended that the petitioner was involved in another Crime No.62/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1), 4(1A), 21(1) of the MMRD Act, 1957 r/w Sections 3, 42 and 44 of the KMMC Rules, 1994 r/w Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and the said case has been committed to the Magistrate Court in C.C.No.54/2016 wherein the learned Magistrate has acquitted the petitioner on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution witnesses have not supported the case. It is further contended that another case i.e., Crime No.337/2010 has been registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341 r/w 149 of IPC and the same is committed to the jurisdictional Magistrate in C.C.No.813/2014 which is still pending consideration before the III JMFC., Court, Mysuru City. Therefore, the respondents-State sought to dismiss the writ petition.
7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis.
8. Sri M. Krishnappa, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned endorsement issued by the authorities as per Annexure-H dated 21.3.2018 is in utter violation of the principles of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. He would further contend that the impugned endorsement is not a speaking order and absolutely no reasons are assigned by the 2nd respondent to continue the name of the petitioner in the Rowdy List. In the absence of any reasons to continue and in view of the acquittal order passed by the learned Sessions Judge as well as the learned Magistrate accepting the ‘B’ report filed by the very police continuing the name of the petitioner in the Rowdy Register cannot be sustained. Therefore, the same is contrary to the material on record.
9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further contend that inspite of the direction issued by this Court on 23rd January, 2018 in Writ Petition No.1657/2018, the impugned endorsement is not sustainable and hence, it is liable to be quashed. He would further contend that though in the statement of objections, the respondents contend that Crime No.337/2010 is committed to the III JMFC, Mysuru City in C.C.No.813/2014 and since the same is pending, is not the basis for continuing the name of the petitioner in the Rowdy Sheet. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petition.
10. Per contra, Sri M. Vinod Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate sought to justify the impugned order and contended that though the petitioner is acquitted in Crime No.17/2013 and ‘B’ report is accepted in Crime No.26/2015, still the petitioner continuing his illegal activities and therefore, in order to maintain law and order and tranquility, the impugned endorsement has been issued. He further contended that the petitioner is not disputing that Crime No.337/2010 has been registered against him and is still pending before the III JMFC, Mysuru City in C.C.No.813/2014 and therefore, he sought to dismiss the writ petition.
11. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner is a B.E. Graduate residing at Mysuru and also involved in Political Activities and is a Member of Some Political Party. It is also not in dispute that he is involved in Crime No.17/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 148, 427, 324, 504, 506, 307 r/w 149 of IPC and also in Crime No. 26/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 384, 511, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Admittedly in Crime No.17/2013 which was committed to the Sessions Court, Mysuru in S.C.No.33/2014, by the order dated 22nd April, 2017, he and others have been acquitted which has attained finality. Therefore, the contention of the learned Government Advocate that he was acquitted by giving benefit of doubt cannot be a ground to continue the name of the petitioner in the Rowdy Sheet. It is also not in dispute that Crime No.36/2015 wherein the learned Magistrate by the order dated 20.6.2017 has accepted the ‘B’ report filed by the jurisdictional police and the same has reached finality. If really the respondents- authorities are aggrieved by the said orders, they ought to have challenged the same before the higher authorities, but the same has not been done.
12. It is also not in dispute that this Court while considering the very case of the petitioner in W.P. 1657/2018 by the order dated 23rd January, 2018 has observed as under:
“5. Though such contentions are urged, it is premature for this Court to go into those aspects of the matter since, at the first instance the respondent No.2, who also has an obligation to take note of the correctness or otherwise of the action, including the review of the rowdy register annually is required to take note of the representation of the petitioner, verify the records and take a decision as to whether there is any justification to continue the name of the petitioner in the rowdy register.
6. Therefore, to enable such consideration to be made by the respondent No.2, the petitioner shall file a representation to the respondent No.2 seeking deletion of his name from the rowdy register by enclosing the documents in support of the claim made by him. On receipt of such representation, the respondent No.2 shall secure necessary details from the respondents No.4 and 5, verify the same and take a decision in the matter and convey the same to the petitioner. Such decision shall be taken by the respondent No.2 as expeditiously as possible but, not later than two months from the date on which the representation is submitted.”
13. It is also not in dispute that after the acquittal order passed by the learned Session Judge, accepting the ‘B’ report filed by the jurisdictional police before the learned Magistrate and after the order passed by this Court and along with these orders, the petitioner has made representation on 5.2.2018. The impugned endorsement, Annexure-H clearly indicates that the Rowdy Sheet is continued based on the report of the Police Inspector and Assistant Commissioner of Police and absolutely no reasons are assigned for continuing the name of the petitioner in the Rowdy Sheet and hence, the same is not speaking order. What is not stated in the impugned endorsement cannot be added by way of statement of objections. It is well settled that where the reasons are not assigned in the impugned endorsement cannot be supplemented by way of objections or by way of arguments. If any case attracts the provisions as contemplated under Order 1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual, a ‘rowdy sheet’ may be opened. Therefore, it is for the appropriate authority to pass a speaking order and in the absence of the same, the impugned endorsement issued by the Commissioner of Police cannot be sustained.
14. The contentions raised by the learned Additional Government Advocate in the statement of objections for continuing the name of the petitioner in the Rowdy Sheet is without any basis and absolutely no reasons are assigned for continuation of the name of the petitioner in the Rowdy Sheet as per Annexure-H. Inspite of the acquittal order passed, if the petitioner, who is a B.E. Graduate and whose name is continued in the Rowdy Sheet for the illegal activities and the said activities attracts the provisions of Order 1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual, then the authorities only have to pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law. In the absence of any reasons and material documents produced before the Court, the impugned endorsement cannot be sustained.
15. For the reasons stated above, writ petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement dated 23.1.2018 issued by the 2nd respondent is hereby quashed and the 2nd respondent is hereby directed to delete the name of the petitioner in Rowdy Sheet list forthwith.
16. It is needless to observe that if the petitioner continues his legal activities attracting the provisions of Order 1059(1) of the Karnataka Police Manual to open a Rowdy Sheet, it is always open for the respondents- Police to take appropriate action strictly in accordance with law.
Sd/- Judge Nsu/-