Sri Chandra K v. Commissioner of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 7797 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: SRI. CHANDRA K AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA R/AT NO.21, NEAR PATEL PUBLIC SCHOOL, KARIYAMMANA AGRAHARA, BELLANDURU POST BENGALURU - 560 037 ALSO AT R/AT. NO.21, KARIYAMMA AGRAHARA VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BELLANDURU POST, BENGALURU - 560 103. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VENKATACHALAPATHI M, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BENGALURU CITY, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶2THE ASST. COMMISSIONER AIRPORT SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU CITY, BENGALURU - 560 300. by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka e -e2e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:23325 WP(No.(7797(of(2026

3., THE,STATION,HOUSE,OFFICER, HAL,POLICE,STATION,,, BENGALURU,-,560,037., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,VIKAS,ROJIPURA,,AGA), , THIS,WP,,IS,FILED,UNDER,ARTICLES,226,AND,227,OF, THE,CONSTITUTION,OF,INDIA,PRAYING,TO,(A),ISSUE,A,WRIT, IN,THE,NATURE,OF,CERTIORARI,,OR,ANY,OTHER,APPROPRIATE, WRIT,,ORDER,,OR,DIRECTION,,DIRECTING,THE,RESPONDENTS, TO, CONSIDER, THE, REQUEST, TO, REVIEW, AND, CLOSE, THE, ROWDY, SHEET, OPENED, AGAINST, THE, PETITIONER, IN, THE, YEAR, 2009, VIDE, ANNEXURE-A,, STRICTLY, IN, ACCORDANCE, WITH,LAW,AND,ETC.,, , THIS, PETITION,, COMING, ON, FOR, ORDERS,, THIS, DAY,, ORDER,WAS,MADE,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, CORAM:, HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,SACHIN,SHANKAR,MAGADUM ORAL(ORDER The, petitioner, in, the, captioned, petition, is, highly, aggrieved,by,the,rowdy,sheet,opened,against,the,petitioner,in, 2009.,

2., Heard, learned, counsel, for, the,petitioner, and, learned, AGA.,Perused,the,records.,,

¶3The records placed before this Court indicate that a rowdy sheet came to be opened against the petitioner at the instance of respondent No.3–Police Station in the year 2009, purportedly on the basis of certain criminal allegations. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the very foundation for opening of the said rowdy sheet was the pendency of criminal proceedings, which have since been fully concluded. The petitioner asserts that he has been acquitted of all the charges in the said proceedings and, therefore, the substratum for continuation of the rowdy sheet no longer survives.

¶4The petitioner would further contend that the continued retention of his name in the register of rowdies is wholly arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the law laid down by this Court in B.S. Prakash v. State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.4504/2021 and connected matters. Placing reliance on the guidelines issued therein, particularly Clause (4), it is contended that the jurisdictional police are under an obligation to undertake a periodic and suo motu review of the rowdy register, even in the absence of any representation by the concerned individual. It is thus urged that the inaction on the

part of the respondents in not reviewing the petitioner's case, despite acquittal and absence of any pending criminal proceedings, amounts to a clear violation of the binding directions issued by this Court.

¶5Having regard to the aforesaid submissions and on perusal of the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that if, as contended by the petitioner, no criminal cases are presently pending against him and he stands acquitted in all earlier proceedings, the continuation of his name in the rowdy register cannot be sustained without an independent and objective review by the competent authority. The law laid down by this Court mandates such a review to ensure that the extraordinary measure of maintaining a rowdy sheet is not continued mechanically or indefinitely, without justification.

¶6In that view of the matter, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case for issuance of appropriate directions. Consequently, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are obligated to undertake a fresh review and re-examination of the petitioner's case, in accordance with the guidelines laid

down by this Court, and determine as to whether the petitioner's name requires to be retained in the rowdy sheeter's register.

¶7In the above circumstances, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER

(i) A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to conduct a periodic review of the petitioner's case in terms of the guidelines laid down by this Court in W.P.No.4504/2021 and connected matters;

(ii) While undertaking such review, the respondents shall specifically take into consideration the factum of acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal cases and the absence of any pending proceedings, if so established;

(iii) The respondents shall pass a reasoned and speaking order as to whether the petitioner's name is

to be retained or deleted from the rowdy sheeter's register;

(iv) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order;

(v) It is made clear that till such consideration is undertaken, no coercive or stigmatic action shall be continued against the petitioner solely on the basis of the existing rowdy sheet, unless there are fresh and independent grounds in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3