In the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 26 th DAY OF JUNE 2013 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN .M. SHANTANAGOUDAR WRIT PETITION No.8090 OF 2013 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: Sri G.R. Ramesh Aged about 42 years S/o G.N. Raghunath Residing at No.200 Next to MSR Hospital KGE Layout New BEL Layout Bangalore-560094. ..Petitioner (By Sri K. Suman, Adv.,) AND : 1. State of Karnataka By its Principal Secretary Home Department Vidhana Soudha Bangalore-560 001. 2. The Commissioner of Police Bangalore City Police Bangalore-560 001. 2 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Police Bangalore City Police (North) Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore-560022. 4. The Assistant Commissioner of Police J.C. Nagar Sub Division Bangalore City Police Bangalore-560042. 5. The Inspector of Police & Station House Officer Sanjaynagar Police Station Bangalore-560094. ..Respondents (By Sri Vijayakumar A. Patil, GA.,) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents 2 to 5 to forthwith delete the name of the petitioner from the rowdy sheeters list i.e. the Register of Rowdies maintained by Sanjaynagar Police Station under Order Nos.1059 and 1060 of the Karnataka Police Manual 1998. This Writ Petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court made the following : 3 O R D E R Petitioner has sought for direction to Respondent Nos.2 to 5 for deletion of his name from the Register of Rowdies maintained by Sanjaynagar Police Station in Order Nos.1059 and 1060 of the Karnataka Police Manual, 1998. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a law abiding citizen; he is carrying on business of car and taxi rental services; he has not committed any criminal acts, muchless resorted to any acts of goondaism, rowdyism or any menial or petty offences, which would in any manner endanger the public at large. According to him, he is doing his business sincerely and nobody has got any grievance against him. However, his name is entered in the Register of Rowdies maintained by Sanjaynagar Police Station. Such entry is impugned in this writ petition. 4 3. Sri Suman, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that there was a litigation between the owner of the house Dr. Nagaraju and the petitioner, which is of civil in nature. Dr. Nagaraju is the owner of the house in which the petitioner was residing as a tenant. In that context, suit was filed by Dr. Nagaraju against the petitioner. Subsequently, two crimes were registered against the petitioner based on the complaint lodged by Dr. Nagaraju. Both the criminal matters are compromised amicably and consequently there is no criminal case pending against the petitioner as of now. It is also necessary to note that the civil suit filed by Dr. Nagaraju also came to be withdrawn. Thereafter the petitioner has vacated the house. Presumably based on the aforementioned two crimes, the name of the petitioner seems to have been entered in the Register of Rowdies. 5 However, learned Government Advocate submits that the initiation of criminal proceedings or pendency of criminal matter against a particular person may not be a sole ground for entering his name in the Register of Rowdies. If the Police finds that a person is passing indecent remarks at women and School and College girls; intimidates law abiding people by acts of violence or by show of force or by abusive language; if he forcibly collects subscription; if he takes sides in petty quarrels between landlords and tenants and threatens people of the opposite party; if he disorderly conducts, it is for the Police to brand such person as rowdy and consequently his name may be entered in the Register of Rowdies maintained by the concerned Police Station. 4. In this context, it is relevant to note the observations made by the learned Single Judge of this Court in DEVADAS DEVAIAH AND OTHERS –vs- STATE OF 6 KARNATAKA reported in ILR 2000 KAR 491, which read thus: “4. Order No.1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual defines ‘Rowdy’ in Clause (1) to mean of goonda and includes a hooligan, rough, vagabond or any person who is dangerous to the public peace and tranquility. Clause (2) of the said Order describes the forms of rowdyism as under- a) Passing indecent remarks to ladies 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 subscriptions; d) Taking sides in petty quarrels between landlords and tenants or between co-tenants and threatening people of the opposite party; e) Disorderly conduct; f) Rioting; and 7 g) Snatching and robbery From a reading of the statement of objections, it is clear that the rowdy sheets were maintained against the petitioners on the order of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer. The said order is not produced by the respondents. If the said order had been produced, the grounds on which the names of the petitioners have been entered in rowdies list could have been gathered. In the absence of the same, the Court has to rely upon what is stated in the objections statement. 5. Undisputedly, the two crimes viz., Crime No.181/2010 registered for the offences punishable under sections 448 and 506 of IPC and Crime No.271/2011 registered for the offences punishable under sections 341, 447, 504, 506 Part-B read with 34 of IPC in Sanjaynagar Police Station have ended in compromise. The civil suit between the petitioner and Dr. Nagaraju has also ended in 8 compromise. Moreover, this Court finds that the aforementioned two crimes arise out of civil litigation between the petitioner and Dr. Nagaraju. Since there is no litigation pending against the petitioner, the petitioner’s counsel is justified in arguing that the apprehension of the Police as sought to be made out in the statement of objections may not be true and correct. The material on record does not anywhere disclose that the petitioner has passed indecent remarks to ladies, school and college girls; that he has intimidated the law abiding people by acts of violence, etc; that he has indulged in collection of subscription; that he had taken sides in petty quarrels between landlords and tenants by threatening of people of the opposite parties; that he has involved in disorderly conducts or rioting, etc. 9 6. It is curious to note the averments made in the statement of objections by the State Government in this writ petition, which read thus: “8. xxx xxx It is only a precautionary measure and in no way, it is to either harass the petitioner or to hinder his social image. In fact, it is another way of giving protection to the life of the petitioner from his rival parties.” The aforementioned averments themselves would be sufficient to allow the writ petition. It is strange on the part of the State Government to contend that the image of a person would not be hindered in case if such person’s name is entered in the Register of Rowdies. This Court is at loss to understand as to under what circumstances, such observations are made by the State Government in the statement of objections. On the other hand, if a person’s name is entered in the Register of Rowdies, he cannot be 10 termed as a respectable person in the society and he can be termed as goonda or rowdy. Be that as it may, this Court does not find any valid reason to continue the name of the petitioner in the Register of Rowdies maintained by Sanjaynagar Police Station. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed . The Respondent Nos.2 to 5 are directed to delete the name of the petitioner from the Register of Rowdies maintained by Sanjaynagar Police Station. It is needless to observe that if the petitioner acts detrimental to the interest of the society and if his act comes within the purview of Order-1059 or Order-1060 of the Karnataka Police Manual, proceedings may be initiated as per law. Sd/- JUDGE Gss/nk- .