IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 21243 of 2010(E) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- ANTON AMJITH VERITHAS, S/O.BABY, AGED 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT VEZHAMBATHOTTAM, VENMANY P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOICE GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, IDUKKI, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PAINAVU P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. THE DY. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANJIKUZHI, OFFICE OF THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, IDUKKI-KANJIKUZHI P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. 5. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANJIKUZHI POLICE STATION, KANJIKUZHI, IDUKKI DISTRICT. R1 TO R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.ALEX M.THOMBRA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs K.M.JOSEPH & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== W.P.(C) NO. 21243 OF 2010 ============================ Dated this the 29th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. The petitioner has approached this court seeking the following:- “i)to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents not to harass the petitioner by maintaining a rowdy history sheet in his name without any basis. ii)to call for the records leading to Ext.P3 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. Iii)issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to close all proceedings initiated against the petitioner for treating him as a rowdy in the records of the Kanjikuzhy Police Station in Idukki District”. Wpc 21243/2010 2 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Venmani in Thodupuzha Taluk of Idukki District. He and his family members were implicated in criminal cases by the Kanjikuzhy Police at the instance of a police officer then in charge of the said police station. All criminal cases registered against the petitioner ended up in acquittal. The latest case was registered in the year 2004 under Section 107 of Cr.P.C and the petitioner was discharged by the SDM holding that the allegations against the petitioner were baseless. The first respondent initiated simultaneously proceedings to open up a rowdy history. By that time, out of seven cases registered against the petitioner, five cases ended up in acquittal. On the basis of the request made by 5th respondent, third respondent passed an order to pen a rowdy sheet and Ext.P3 rowdy history sheet has been opened up and renewed from time to time without any reason. Petitioner was working as a temporary employee during the years 2005 to 2009 in various Government departments including office of the Special Judge for NDPS Act cases, Thodupuzha. He came to know of the opening of the rowdy sheet and about inclusion of his namein the records of Kanjikuzhy Police Station only when a police verificatin was Wpc 21243/2010 3 conducted for appointing him as a driver in the Kerala Armed Police battalion-I. Petitioner immediately approached the second respondent for closing the rowdy history sheet maintained in his office. It is further complained that respondents have failed to comply with any of the provisions contained in Chapter-III, Volume II of the Police Manual. The proceedings are only to harass the petitioner. A statement is filed wherein Ext.R3(a) is produced as Volume II of Chapter III of Police Manual. Ext.R3(b) is the Rowdy sheet maintained in respect of the petitioner. There is reference made to various cases in the statement. It is also stated that he is a candidate in all sorts of anti-social activities in the police station limits. It is stated that since he was accused in seven criminal cases, no favourable report was sent to the Commandant KAP-1st Battalion after the enquiry. It is true that the petitioner is being treated as a Rowdy at Kanjikuzhy Police Station in Idukki District. Action was taken to treat him as a as a rowdy by S.I. Of Police, Kanjikuzhy on 9.3.2004 and the rowdy history sheet was prepared and forwarded and sanction was accorded dated 2.3.2004. Thereafter, the activities of the petitioner is being watched and details of the checking and the renewal are recorded. There is reference to petitioner filing another writ Wpc 21243/2010 4 petition. It is stated that petitioner is a known criminal in the jurisdiction of Kanjikuzhy Circle Limits. Petitioner has filed a reply producing inter alia Exts.P10 to P13 which are copies of judgments in criminal cases and produced to show that petitioner has been acquitted. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Joice George and also learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel for the petitioner would draw our attention to Ext.R3(a) and he would point out that there is no basis to treat him as a rowdy and he would reiterate that he has been acquitted in all criminal cases and comments have been made by the courts to the extent that in some cases allegations are baseless. In some cases, he was acquitted giving the benefit of doubt. Petitioner has produced Ext.P8. He pointed out that Clause 10 which provides that rowdies may be dealt with under the following provisions of law:- “ 1) Section 106 Cr.P.C.(Security for keeping the peace on conviction). 2) Section 107 Cr.P.C.(Security for keeping the peace etc). 3) Section 109 Cr.P.C.(Security from vagrants etc) 4) Section 110(F) Cr.P.C.(Security for good behavious from a person so desparate and dangerous etc) 5) Sections 47, 51 and 51A of the Kerala Police Act( For being found armed between sunset and sunrise Wpc 21243/2010 5 intending to commit an offence, drunken and disorderly conduct, riotous or indecent behavious in street etc, respectively). 6) Prosecution in appropriate cases for obscene acts and songs – Section 294 IPC. 7) Prosecution for any other specific offence that may be committed”. 4. It is submitted that the case registered against the petitioner under Section 107 ended in the petitioner being discharged noting that there was no case. Clause 8 also is relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It reads as follows:- “ A Rowdy History Sheet may be closed on the orders of the Superintendent of Police, based on the recommendations of the Circle Inspector of Polic routed through the Deputy Superintendent of Police/Assistant Superintendent of Police”. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further points out that the petitioner has submitted Ext.P7 before the Superintendent of Police and that is not being considered. Learned Government Pleader on the other hand submitted that respondents were justified in opening the Rowdy History Sheet and it is intended to protect the society from criminal activities and it is not necessary that there should be Wpc 21243/2010 6 conviction. He would further submit that the case of the petitioner that petitioner had submitted Ext.P7 is not correct and Ext.P7 has not been received. It is further sumitted that in fact a crime has been registered against the petitioner recently that is Crime No.246 of 2010 of Kanjikuzhy Police Station under Section 341, 294(b), 510(ii) of IPC and final report was also filed. The prayer in this writ petition is to direct the respondents not to harass the petitioner by maintaining a Rowdy History Sheet, to quash Ext.P3 and to close all proceedings. Ext.P3 is a Rowdy History Sheet opened in the name of the petitioner. We notice that petitioner had filed a writ petition earlier. The prayers sought in the said writ petition, WP(C)No. 6697 of 2010, are as follows. “i) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to give appointment order to the petitioner as driver/police constable. ii)to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 3 to 5 to give a favourable police verification report to the 2nd respondent enabling the petitioner to get an appointment as Wpc 21243/2010 7 driver/police constable under the 2nd respondent. Iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 3 and 4 to remove the name of the petitioner from the list of roudies of the Kanjikuzhy Police Station forthwith. iv) to grant such other relief as this Honourable Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case”. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to work out the remedies and it is accordingly that the petitioner has approached this court seeking the reliefs which were sought. 7. We must notice that the third prayer in the said writ petition was to remove the name of the petitioner from the rowdy list of Kanjikuzhy Police Station. At any rate, basically the case of the petitioner is that having regard to the fact that petitioner has been acquitted, this court may interfere with the opening of the rowdy list. He has moved this writ petition on the basis that he has filed Ext.P7 and apparently relying on the power of the police superintendent under clause 8 of Wpc 21243/2010 8 Ext.P8 to close the file in the name of a person of course on the recommendation of the concerned police officer. But as it turns out the petitioner has not filed such a petition. We also notice that yet another case is charged against the petitioner, a crime is registered and after investigation, charge sheet is filed and matter is pending trial in the concerned Magistrate Court. We see no reason in the circumstances of this case to interfere with Ext.P3 as such. No doubt it is open to the police officer concerned under clause 8 to take action as is provided therein. We close this writ petition without prejudice to right of the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies before the concerned authorities. K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE lgk