Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

Y Srinivasa @ Seena @ Seena Kadu Seena vs The State Of Karnataka And Others

High Court Of Karnataka|13 October, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE A S BOPANNA WRIT PETITION No.43130/2017(GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:
Y.SRINIVASA @ SEENA @ SEENA KADU SEENA, S/O.YELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO. NO, NEAR MANGAMMA TEMPLE, BEHIND ASWIN NURSING HOME BELAKHAHALLI, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 076. .. PETITIONER (BY SRI RAJASHEKARA R.V., ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE CENTRAL DIVISION, CUBBONPARK, BANGALORE – 560 002.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AGNEYA DIVISION, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE – 560 025.
5. THE POLICE INSPECTOR, MICO LAY OUT POLICE STATION, BANGALORE – 560 078.
6. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, HALASUR GATE, BANGALORE – 560 002.
7. THE POLICE INSPECTOR, SAMPANGIRAMANAGAR POLICE BANGALORE – 560 002. .. RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ‘C’ ROWDY SHEET NO.413/AC./1995 AND ON 30.8.1995 BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND TO DIRECT THE R7 TO CLOSE THE ‘C’ ROWDY SHEET AGAINST THE PETITONER BY ISSUING WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Learned Government Advocate to accept notice for respondents 1 to 7 and file memo of appearance in four weeks.
2. Petitioner is before this Court seeking that “C” Rowdy Sheet No.413/AC 3?1995 dated 30.08.1995 maintained in respondent no.7 - Police Station be quashed.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he was earlier residing within the jurisdiction of the 7th respondent and was carrying on his avocation as autorickshaw driver. At that stage, though according to the petitioner, he was not actually involved, the case in Crime No.305/1992 and Crime No.42/1995 were registered against the petitioner. Petitioner contends that subsequent thereto, the petitioner has shifted out of the jurisdiction of respondent no.7 and is presently residing within the jurisdiction of respondent no.5 – Police Station. Petitioner, further contends that he has not involved himself in any rowdy activities subsequent thereto. In that light, it is contended that since, there is no justification for respondent no.7 to continue to maintain the rowdy sheet, the same is required to be quashed. It is in that view, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Taking note of the contentions as put forth in this petition, the position of law is well established that in addition to the pendency of the criminal case and the registration of crime, what is also to be taken note by the competent authority is the conduct as is depicted in Standing Order No.1059 of Karnataka Police Manual and it is in that light the decision is to be taken as to, Whether the name of a person is required to be continued in the Rowdy Register or to be deleted?
5. Therefore, the prayer to quash the rowdy sheet as made in this petition need not be considered at this stage. However, respondent no.2 has a statutory duty to review the rowdy sheet maintained annually and thereafter, take a decision as to Whether there is any justification to continue the same or as to whether the name is required to be deleted? In that view, the petitioner is granted liberty to file a representation to respondent no.2 bringing to his notice the above referred aspects and request for deletion of the name of the petitioner from the rowdy register. If such a representation is made by the petitioner, respondent no.2 shall secure the records from both respondent no.5 as well as respondent no.7, police Stations and on verification of the same, take a decision in the matter in accordance with law. The decision taken shall be conveyed to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible but, in any event, not later than 3 months from the date on which the representation is submitted.
Petition is accordingly disposed of.
brn Sd/- JUDGE
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Y Srinivasa @ Seena @ Seena Kadu Seena vs The State Of Karnataka And Others

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
13 October, 2017
Judges
  • A S Bopanna