H. BYREGOWDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the respondents 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. 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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 of 2005, 191 to 193 of 2008, 132 and 229 of 2009 are also referred to. Keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner, the proceedings held under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 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 framework of Rule 1059 of the Police Manual, the name of the petitioner was included in the rowdy list.