Telangana High Court
Johan Singh vs The Govt. Of Ap Rep. By Its Principal ... on 13 December, 2023
Author: G.Radha Rani
Bench: G.Radha Rani
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
WRIT PETITION No.24711 of 2013
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to issue an order in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in abstaining from closure of rowdy sheet in the name of the petitioner inspite of acquittal in criminal cases in C.C.No.34 of 1999 dated 17.01.2002 and C.C.No.59 of 2001 dated 12.04.2002 on the file of the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and also dismissal of 107 Cr.P.C. proceedings before the Executive Magistrate and to declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, against law and in violation of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
2. Heard Sri K.Suresh Shiv Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was the Chairman of Sikh Gurudwara Chowni situated at 2 Dr.GRR, J wp_24711_2013 Uppuguda, Hyderabad. He was also doing business at Uppuguda. The Gurudwara was surrounded by land admeasuring Ac.8-03gts. There were lot of encroachments which were prevented by the petitioner. As the Chairman of the religious institution, he was discharging his duty peacefully. Since longtime, the litigation of Sikh Gurudwara Chowni was prosecuted by the petitioner in several Courts including the Endowment Tribunal. The petitioner was falsely implicated in two cases i.e. C.C.No.34 of 1999 under Section 324 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and C.C.No.59 of 2001 under Section 147, 353 read with 149 of IPC and Section 7(i) and Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1994 on the file of the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. In the above cases, the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.2 and accused No.1 respectively.
4. In both the cases in C.C.No.59 of 2001 and C.C.No.34 of 1999, the petitioner was acquitted vide judgments dated 12.04.2002 and 17.01.2003 respectively. The Police without any evidence registered a crime under Section 107 Cr.P.C., which was referred to the Revenue 3 Dr.GRR, J wp_24711_2013 Divisional Officer - cum - Executive Magistrate, Hyderabad. Ultimately, the same was also dismissed for non-prosecution. The respondent No.3 opened rowdy sheet against the petitioner in the year 2002 and was harassing the petitioner. Without any reason, the petitioner was called to the police station regularly. In view of the Police Standing Orders, and the judgments of various Courts, when the petitioner was acquitted in criminal cases, maintaining of rowdy sheet against the petitioner was in violation of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and as such prayed to close the rowdy sheet against the petitioner.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments of this Court in W.P.No.31462 of 2015 dated 30.09.2018 as well as in W.P.No.10437 of 2021 dated 18.10.2022.
6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home on instructions submitted that total eleven cases were registered against the petitioner, in which the petitioner was acquitted in seven cases and one case was referred as Lack of Evidence and in two cases, the petitioner was facing trial.
4
Dr.GRR, J wp_24711_2013
7. He further submitted that even after filing the writ petition, the petitioner was involved in two cases i.e. Crime No.241 of 2014 for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 506 of IPC of Chatrinaka Police Station and the case was pending for trial vide C.C.No.603 of 2015 and Crime No.11 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 341, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and the said case was also pending for trial vide C.C.No.2918 of 2021.
8. On a perusal of the record and the citations relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the petitioner was involved in several cases, all the cases registered against the petitioner resulted either in acquittal or referred as 'Lack of Evidence' and only two cases are currently pending against him, one a private complaint and the other filed by the Endowments Department.
9. This Court in W.P.No.31462 of 2015 after referring to a number of cases passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well the common High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana held that, 5 Dr.GRR, J wp_24711_2013 In Majid Babu v. Government of Andhra Pradesh 1, it was held by a single Judge of this Court that two instances of involvement in criminal cases would not make a person a 'habitual offender' and that at least more than two instances should be present before a person can be described as a 'habitual offender'. In Kamma Bapuji v. Station House Officer, Brahmasamudram2also, this Court held that figuring as an accused in two crimes would not be sufficient to categorize a person as a 'habitual offender' and the said principle was affirmed in Shaik Mahboob v. The Commissioner of Police 3 , Gudivada Sai Baba v. State of AP, Home Department 4 , P.Sathiyya Naidu v. Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District 5 , Beerjepally Venkatesh Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh6.
10. In W.P.No.10437 of 2021 also, a single Judge of this Court while referring to the judgment in Umesh Singhaniya v. 1 1987 (2) ALT 904 2 1997 (6) ALD 583 3 1990 (1) APLJ 363 4 2002 (3) ALT 391 5 2011 (2) ALT 61 6 2014 (3) ALT 264 6 Dr.GRR, J wp_24711_2013 Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad 7 held that opening of rowdy sheet is not permissible unless there are more than two pending cases causing breach of peace, disturbance to public order and security.
11. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home also conceded that as only two cases were pending against the petitioner, agreed to give a direction to the Police to close the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner with a liberty to open a fresh rowdy sheet, if any offences are committed by him in future.
12. Considering the said submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, it is considered fit to allow the Writ Petition directing the respondents to close the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner vide Proceeding No.899/IW/PS-CNK/2000 dated 29.12.2000 giving a liberty to open fresh rowdy sheet if any offences are committed by the petitioner in future.
13. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed with the above directions. No order as to costs.
7 2013 (3) ALT 146 7 Dr.GRR, J wp_24711_2013 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this petition, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ Dr. G.RADHA RANI, J Date: 13th December, 2023 Nsk.