High Court Karnataka High Court

A Alphonse Babu vs The Home Secretary on 3 September, 2010

Karnataka High Court
A Alphonse Babu vs The Home Secretary on 3 September, 2010
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 3"' my OF SEPTEMBER, 2o1soi"*r«s.;*r.Tgg
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE'K;'fi"¥* __Tv.'*5U-:t\'.jT}?:k»L.VV.,I' n

WRIT PETITION NO.925Q oE'2o¢.o  

BETWEEN :

A. Alphonse Babu
S/o late Muthu P
Aged about 53 years
We No.5, First Cro_ss
Marappa Block  ' =' 
3.C. Nagar,__ !\.*ortrT'1j._R..ange

Bangaiore-:'S'6Q:_O§)6.°= »    ..Petétéoner

(By    'Gotwd a  ,)

AND :  '

1. The Horéée V_:Sec.r1eta'w""'"
government' of HKa mataka
"X/idhanar-Soudha """ "

A ' n ., Ba r;ga.tor_e'.~--. _

2.. V"*IiheV'Co'mrT1i.ssioner of Police

'.e.aa4ngaIpra;e'c:ty, Infantry Road
Bangalore.

"  *T4_heVVDeputy Commissioner

 v Police, Bangalore East
 Bangalore.



iv

4. The Asst. Commissioner of
Poiice, J.C. Nagar Sub--Divisiori
Bangalore City.

5. The Police Inspector
J.C. Nagar Police Station
Bangalore City.

6. The Sub--Inspector of Police
J.C. Nagar Police Station
Bagalore City.

Respondent Nos.1 o 6  »
Rep by State Pubiic_Prosecu_to-r._ 
High Court of Karn.ata.i<a  " ' V 
Bangaiore.   7   _..Respondents
(By Sri Narendra--Prasad,"HC'GP';,)f,__ it 

This \..I\.Irit4 Pé:étv:i_t_io~n'j.is1fi_ied__uriderV Articles 226 & 227 of

the Constitu't.i.o'n of India Vpra--*,4i__rfig to direct the respondents
to rem'o\/'e' ith.eif,peti'i;ione'r.'namefrom the rowdy sheet which
was pe_ndi_r:g in*'.th.e"J.C.-,Nagar- Police Station, Bangaiore in
No.C.C/514/AC.P/JCi\iV.1v99zi._ ,.~dated 13.8.94 against the
petitionerain~the'aii5oveV'said facts and circumstances and
setting liberty." _  

This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing

V','in.'_yB" gpvroupyéthis day, the Court made the following :

ORDER

T.l.’1’e-petitioner is questioning the opening of a

it ri=o.wciy¥sheet as against him pursuant to the direction

isgsiiea on 13.8.1994. The facts in brief are that

-4-

4. I have perused the impugned order.
Apparently, since 1994 no case is registe.te:d:_:’.as
against the petitioner for any
petitioner is to be treated as rowd.y_,__one’ it”
look into C|ausew1059 of the Karina:t_aka
A rowdy is defined as it
hooiigan, rough, vagaV.bonyd””‘or:’:’any person-‘:§who is
dangerous to the tranquility.
Indeed, sub;~’C’i’*’:”yiL~.’..’»’°.a’e :i’A__A2).;»y’§,¥iou!Ad’ir{ai.so:f’indicate several
forms. A not indicate that
the these classifications.

Indeedyisyiéncrei registered as against the

pet”it;jio’r’.er, the view that inclusion of his name

_rowd4vy«esheet is liable to be quashed.

far as proceedings under Section 110 of

concerned, it is nothing but a security given

eithe petitioner for good behaviour. The

45

if’

in

apprehension of the State is that if the petitioner is

removed from the rowdy~sheet, there

possibility of the petitioner reverting to

start violating Law and Order …. ..__’Incie’ed*,3’_’;vsLi’ch”_an it

apprehension is aiiayed by making aj_’n~observa’tioii’i_ith”avtj

if the petitioner induiges a’ci:i_vit.iues, open * it

for the respondents to_inc!u..d’e ~h__i’-3 in-ame aii-ov.e:r again.

Hence, the following order

i) 5. ijaiceiiiiiiidirected to
____ W ofxthe petitioner
which is in
‘~iJ.VC’;’»«i?olice Station in

, No; Si-.éi/}i’CP/JCN/94 ,-

the petitioner indulges in any of
_ – 4Va~nti.social activities, it is open for the
“7ire:spondents to take necessary action

‘V ‘against him.

it * Petition stands disposed of accordingiy.

fie

V6″

Ruie is issued and made absolute to the extent

as indicated above.

Mr.Narendra Prasad, Eearned

to file memo of appearance in fiour:.w’ejveks.’:’._.’ V

A –

‘;uaq9