@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
B.S. Patil
1. In these writ petitions, petitioner is challenging the order dated 18.06.2011 passed by the 2nd respondent-the Assistant Commissioner of
Police, Mico Layout Sub-Division, Bangalore, vide Annexure-D, thereby permitting to open a rowdy sheet, against the petitioner as provided
under the Karnataka Police Manual.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a businessman and has been associated with some political parties. Assertions made in the writ: petition
disclose that the 3rd respondent-Police Inspector. Tilak Nagar Police Station, Bangalore had threatened the petitioner stating that a rowdy sheet
would be opened against him. In this connection, petitioner had made representation dated 01.08.2011 to the higher authority- the Assistant
Commissioner of Police, bringing to his notice the relevant factors leading to the threat held out to the petitioner by the police inspector at the
instance of one Shanmuka. A copy of this representation is produced at Annexure-J. It is the case of the petitioner that in view of the said
complaint lodged by the petitioner at the instance of Shanmuka the Authorities have now passed the impugned order at Annexure-D on
18.06.2011 to open rowdy sheet, which is illegal and arbitrary and violative of the rights contained under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner taking me through Annexure-D, order challenged in this writ petition submits that the impugned order
proceeds on a totally incorrect factual aspect in as much as the complaint filed u/s 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code in Crime No.350/2010 which
is made the basis for opening the rowdy sheet against the petitioner has ended in acquittal of the petitioner by the judgment: rendered by the 2nd
Additional Metropolitan Magistrate on 10.05.2011 in CC.No.9651/2011. A copy of this order passed by the learned Magistrate is produced at.
Annexure-H along with the writ petition. He therefore contends that such an order passed based, on incorrect: material cannot be sustained.
4. Learned Government: Pleader submits on instructions that C.C.No.9651/2011 was disposed of after the same was got advanced and on
account of the complaint turning hostile due to a compromise arrived at between the accused and the complainant the case ended in acquittal and
therefore the respondent-police were unaware of the passing of the judgment by the learned Magistrate. It is his further contention that: the first
ground which is also made the basis for opening the rowdy sheet as per the impugned order, Annexure-D clearly shows that the petitioner was a
threat to the law and order and therefore there was sufficient material to the authorities to proceed on that basis.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the materials on record, I find that though there was yet another basis in
the form of crime No.323/2010 which is pending consideration before the Court in C.C.No. 1940/2011 for the offences under Sections 353, 506,
427 read with Section 34 of IPC, the fact remains that while passing the impugned order directing to open a rowdy sheet against the petitioner, the
Assistant Commissioner of Police has taken into consideration the two cases pertaining to crime Nos.323 and 350/2010 and has come to the
conclusion that the cumulative effect of these two cases impelled him to hold that a rowdy sheet was required to be opened against the petitioner.
Now it transpires that on the date Annexure-D order was passed, the case in Crime No.350/2010 had ended in acquittal and therefore the only
ease that was pending against the petitioner was a ease registered in Crime No.323/2010 numbered as C.C.No. 19940/2010. Therefore it, has to
be said that the impugned order was passed ignoring the important circumstance namely, the acquittal of the petitioner in one of the crimes
registered against him. Whether pendency of another case alone is sufficient to sustain the conclusion cannot be considered by this Court. Once the
foundation laid for opening the rowdy sheet: in terms of the impugned order is found to be not correct, though partially, this Court has to interfere
with the said order. Hence the impugned order cannot be sustained. The same is accordingly set aside and the writ petitions are allowed.
6. It will be open to the respondents-Police to re-examine the entire matter, if they consider that there is any such need.
