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.
