Case Law Details
Tanveer Ahmed @ Tanveer Vs State of Karnataka (Karnataka High Court)
The Karnataka High Court examined a petition challenging the inclusion of the petitioner’s name in a rowdy sheeter register maintained by the police. The petitioner contended that such inclusion was unwarranted. During the hearing, the State submitted, based on police records, that no criminal cases were currently pending against the petitioner, who is around 62 years old.
The Court reiterated that maintaining a rowdy register in Form No.100 is not a routine or mechanical exercise. It must be based on sufficient and tangible material indicating involvement in acts of rowdyism. The register is required to reflect a continuous record of activities, including criminal cases, complaints, or incidents affecting public order, along with specific details such as case numbers and the status of proceedings. There must also be reasonable grounds to suspect involvement in criminal activities.
In the present case, the material placed on record did not disclose any instances of criminal conduct or ongoing proceedings against the petitioner. The report submitted before the Court confirmed the absence of any such allegations. Consequently, the Court found that there was no foundational material to justify either the opening or continuation of a rowdy sheet against the petitioner.
The Court held that the inclusion of the petitioner’s name in the rowdy register was unsupported by law and lacked necessary justification. It observed that continuing such an entry without substantiating material would unjustifiably stigmatize the individual and adversely affect his reputation and liberty.
Exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court quashed the impugned action. It directed the jurisdictional police authorities to remove the petitioner’s name from the rowdy register and delete his photograph and related particulars from police records.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
The captioned petition is filed, feeling aggrieved by the inclusion of the petitioner’s name in a rowdy sheeter register at the instance of respondent no.10.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the respondents. Perused the records.
3. Learned AGA, on instructions, submits that the police report reveals that no criminal cases are pending against the petitioner, who is aged around 62 years.
4. In the light of the statement made by the learned AGA and upon perusal of the material placed on record, it is evident that the jurisdictional police officer is required to maintain the rowdy register in Form No.100 only in cases where there are sufficient and tangible instances of rowdyism attributable to a person. The maintenance of such a register is not a routine or mechanical exercise. The register is required to contain a running history of the activities of the alleged rowdy, including details of criminal cases, complaints, or incidents indicating involvement in offences affecting public order. Such record must also disclose reasonable grounds to suspect the person’s complicity in criminal activities, supported by specific case numbers wherever available, together with the status and outcome of the criminal proceedings pending against him.
5. In the present case, though the petitioner’s name has been included in the rowdy register, the report now furnished by the learned AGA before this Court clearly indicates that no criminal activities are presently attributed to the petitioner. The memo placed on record does not disclose any material demonstrating that the petitioner has indulged in acts of rowdyism, nor does it indicate the existence of any criminal cases or complaints which would justify the continuation of the petitioner’s name in the rowdy register. In the absence of such foundational material, the very basis for opening or continuing a rowdy sheet against the petitioner becomes unsustainable.
6. Having regard to the report now produced by the learned AGA, this Court is of the considered opinion that the inclusion of the petitioner’s name in the rowdy register was unwarranted and unsupported by the material required under law. The continuation of such entry, without any substantiating instances of criminal conduct, would unjustifiably stigmatize the petitioner and adversely affect his reputation and liberty.
7. Therefore, in the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the impugned order. Consequently, the jurisdictional police officer is directed to remove the name of the petitioner from the rowdy register maintained in Form No.100 and also to remove the petitioner’s photograph and other particulars, if displayed in the police station, treating him as a rowdy or rowdy sheeter.
With these observation, the captioned petition is allowed in part.
Author Bio
