Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 152 (KAR)

H. BYREGOWDA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2014-02-13

A.S.BOPANNA

body2014
ORDER 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the respondents No. 1 to 3 to consider the representation of the petitioner and to remove the name of the petitioner from the rowdy sheet opened in Magadi Town police station, Magadi, Ramanagar District. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a Journalist and is also involved in social service. The fourth respondent was working as a Sub-Inspector and since he had animosity against the petitioner, he has unnecessarily implicated the petitioner in certain criminal cases which has led to the name of the petitioner being included in the rowdy list. 3. It is also the case of the petitioner that even in respect of certain cases which have been taken into consideration for inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the rowdy list, more particularly the cases referred to in Annexures-E, E2 and E3 does not indicate that the petitioner is an accused in the said proceedings. It is therefore contended that the inclusion of the name of the petitioner as a rowdy is not justified and in that regard, even though the petitioner has made representation, the same has not been considered. The petitioner therefore contends that a mandamus be issued to the respondents to delete the name of the petitioner from the rowdy list. 4. The respondents have filed their objection statement. The action taken by them to include the name of the petitioner in the rowdy list is sought to be justified. The allegation that he has been implicated in the cases is denied. In order to point out that the petitioner in fact has involved himself in several criminal activities, the learned Government Advocate has referred to the specific cases, wherein the petitioner has been arraigned as a accused. It is also pointed out that a case in Crime No. 52 of 2001 was initiated based on the complaint lodged by the Magadi Taluk Magistrate. Further the name of the complainant in the other cases where crimes have been registered in Crime Nos.177/2005, 191/2008, 192/2008, 193/2008, 132/2009 and 229/2009 are also referred to. Keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner, the proceedings held under Section 107 of the IPC during the assembly elections is also referred to. Further the name of the complainant in the other cases where crimes have been registered in Crime Nos.177/2005, 191/2008, 192/2008, 193/2008, 132/2009 and 229/2009 are also referred to. Keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner, the proceedings held under Section 107 of the IPC during the assembly elections is also referred to. In that circumstance, it is contended that keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner, since it falls within the frame work of Rule 1059 of the Police Manual, the name of the petitioner was included in the rowdy list. 5. Having noticed these aspects of the matter, even though the petitioner contends that he has been falsely implicated, the fact that several cases have been registered against him cannot be denied. Though, in couple of cases the petitioner has been acquitted, the other cases are pending trial. Be that as it may, irrespective of whether a case has been registered against a person or not, the conduct of the person is also one of the aspects which requires consideration while including the person in the rowdy list as provided under Rule 1059 of the Police Manual. Hence, if that aspect of the matter is kept in view, the cases which have been registered against the petitioner are up to the year 2009, except the proceedings under Section 107 of IPC which was held in the year 2013 in view of the assembly elections. Hence, it is seen that few years have lapsed from the time, the crimes referred to in the objection statement were registered against the petitioner, but the fact remains that there are cases pending. 6. Therefore, though I see no reason to come to a conclusion that the name of the petitioner has been included without basis, certainly when reformative theory is one of the essence of criminal jurisprudence and as such whether he has reformed also needs to be noticed. Hence, if an appropriate representation is made by the petitioner to the Superintendent of Police, Ramanagar District, the Superintendent of Police may secure the details, find out as to whether there would be justification in continuing the name of the petitioner in the rowdy list or as to whether any direction is to be issued to close the rowdy list. Hence, if an appropriate representation is made by the petitioner to the Superintendent of Police, Ramanagar District, the Superintendent of Police may secure the details, find out as to whether there would be justification in continuing the name of the petitioner in the rowdy list or as to whether any direction is to be issued to close the rowdy list. This shall remain entirely in the discretion of the Superintendent of Police based on the conduct that is noticed subsequently and the requirement thereof. 7. To enable such consideration, the petitioner is granted the liberty of making representation to the Superintendent of Police, Ramanager District who may thereafter examine the representation and come to a conclusion in accordance with law. While doing so, the scope and object of Rule 1059 of the Police Manual shall be kept in view and the decision taken in that regard shall be intimated to the petitioner. In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.