Telangana High Court
Mohd Mumtaz Qureshi vs The State Of Telangana, on 28 December, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.32390 of 2023
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking to call for the proceedings of the suspect sheets opened and maintained on the file of respondent Nos.6 and 7 against the petitioners and to consequently quash the same, as being illegal, arbitrary and improper, unilateral, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.
2. The case of the petitioners is that they were falsely implicated in a criminal case registered by respondent No.5 vide Crime No.145 of 2018 for the offence punishable under Section 384 read with 34 IPC which was subsequently taken cognizance by the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistraet at Hyderabad vide C.C.No.7651 of 2022 and the same ended in compromise before the Lok Adalat. Therefore, no crimes are pending against them in any police station as on date. However, basing on the alleged offence, respondent Nos.6 and 7 opened suspect sheets against petitioner Nos.1 and 2 respectively. The main grievance of the petitioners is that even though there are no criminal cases pending against them, the respondents with a mala fide intention are continuing the suspect sheets and due to surveillance, they are facing much inconvenience and hardship to lead a respectable and dignified life in the society. 2
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.4 stating that a case in Crime No.121 of 2022 for the offence punishable under Section 384 of IPC dated 05.09.2022 was registered on the file of respondent No.5 herein against the petitioners and others, wherein charge sheet has been filed vide C.C.No.7651 of 2022 on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally and the same was compromised before the Lok Adalat on 10.06.2023; since petitioner No.1 does not reside within the jurisdiction of respondent No.7, suspect sheet has been opened against the petitioner on the file of a different police station; since respondent No.2, who is accused No.7 in the above crime, is young and active unsocial element indulged in criminal activities, to keep surveillance over his activities and movements, the Station House Officer, Kamatipura Police Station, Hyderabad, respondent No.5 herein, addressed a letter No.516/OW/KM/2022 dated 18.11.022 requesting the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Charminar Division, Hyderabad City, to accord necessary permission to open suspect sheet against him and the latter, in turn, accorded permission vide proceedings No.2616/ACP/CMNR/22 dated 19.11.2022; accordingly suspect sheet in Form No.88 was opened against petitioner No.2 as per Order No.742(1), 736(a)(b) of A.P. Police Manual on 19.11.2022; Subsequently, after obtaining necessary permission, the said suspect sheet has been transferred to respondent 3 No.7 police station on the point of jurisdiction and the same is presently being maintained on the file of respondent No.7; in view of State Legislative Assembly elections there is need to keep surveillance over the petitioners herein and as such it is necessary to continue the suspect sheets against the petitioners; and except continuing the suspect sheets, the petitioners have not been called to the police station much less they were harassed by the respondents police.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as on date, there are no cases pending against the petitioners and therefore, prayed to close the suspect sheets opened against the petitioners. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment in Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. and others 1 and Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar 2, in which, the Apex Court held that opening of rowdy sheet and continuing the same without any valid reason would not characterize a person that he is habitually involving in commission of offences.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the judgments in Sunkara Satyanarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh 3 ; B. Satyanarayana Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh 4 ; Majid Babu v. 1 AIR 1963 SC 1295 2 AIR 1984 SC 1334 3 2000(1) ALD (Crl.) 117 (AP) 4 2004(1) ALD (Crl.) 387 (AP) 4 Government of Andhra Pradesh 5 ; Kamma Bapuji v. Station House Officer, Brahmasamudram 6. He has further relied on the judgment in Puttagunta Pasi v. Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada 7, in which, the Division Bench has specifically observed that a rowdy sheet could not be opened against an individual in a casual and mechanical manner and due care and caution should be taken by the police before characterizing a person as a rowdy.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed much reliance on the judgment in Yerramsetti Venugopal Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others 8, in which, the learned Single Judge of High Court of Andhra Pradesh while referring to the Standing Orders of A.P. Police Manual and the principles laid down in the catena of judgments held that history sheet of a rowdy can be continued (i) if the activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or affecting peace and tranquility in the area; ii) the victims are not coming forward to give complaint against him on account of threat from him.
7. It is apt to refer to the relevant Standing Orders of A.P. Police Manual.
5 1987(2) ALT 904 6 1997(6) ALD 583 7 1998(3) ALT 55 (DB) 8 2020(2) ALD (Crl.) 1048 (AP) 5 Maintenance of rowdy sheets is governed by Standing Order No.601 of A.P. Police Manual, Part-I, Volume II, which reads as under:
"601. The following persons may be classified as rowdies and Rowdy Sheets (Form 80) may be opened for them under the orders of the SP/DCP and ACP/SDPO.
A. Persons who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences involving a breach of the peace, disturbance to public order and security.
B. Persons bound over under Sections 106, 107, 108(1) (i) and 110(e) and (g) of Cr.P.C.
C. Persons who have been convicted more than once in two consecutive years under sections 59 and 70 of the Hyderabad City Police Act or under section 3, clause 12, of the AP Towns Nuisances Act.
D. Persons who habitually tease women and girls and pass indecent remarks.
F. Persons who intimidate by threats or use of physical violence or other unlawful means to part with movable or immovable properties or in the habit of collecting money by extortion from shopkeepers, traders and other residents.
G. Persons who incite and instigate communal/caste or political riots.
H. Persons detained under the "AP Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land-Grabbers Act, 1986" for a period of 6 months or more.6
I. Persons who are convicted for offences under the Representatives of the Peoples' Act for rigging and carrying away ballot paper, Boxes and other polling material"'
8. The period of retention of history sheets of suspects/rowdies is governed by Standing Order No.602 of A.P. Police Manual and the same reads as follows:
"602-1. History Sheets of suspects shall be maintained from the date of registration up to the end of December, after which the orders of a gazetted officer as to their discontinuance or retention for a further period shall be obtained.
2. Merely because a suspect/rowdy, having a history sheet, is not figuring as accused in the previous 5 years after the last case in which he was involved, it should not preclude the SP/DCP/CP to continue his history sheet if SP/DCP/CP is of the considered view that his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or one affecting peace and tranquillity in the area or the victims are not coming forward to give complaint against him on account of threat from him."
9. Standing Order No.742 of A.P. Police Manual deals with the classification of rowdies and opening of rowdy sheets and the same is extracted below:
"742. Rowdies:- (1) The following persons may be classified as rowdies and Rowdy Sheets (Form 88) may be opened for them under the order of the Superintendent of Police or Sub-divisional Officer:7
(a) persons who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of, offences involving a breach of the peace;
(b) persons bound over under Sections 106, 107, 108(c) and 110(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No.2 of 1974);
(c) persons who have been convicted more than once in two consecutive years under Section 75 of the Madras City Police Act or under Section 3, clause 12, of the Towns Nuisances Act;
(d) persons who habitually tease women and girls by passing indecent remarks or otherwise; and
(e) in the case of rowdies residing in an area under one Police Station but are found to be frequently visiting the area under one or more other Police Stations their rowdy sheets can be maintained at all such Police Stations;
(G.O. Ms. No. 656, Home (Police-D) Dept. Dt. 8-4-1971) (2) Instructions in Order 735 regarding discontinuance of History Sheets shall also apply to Rowdy Sheets."
10. In the present case, as per the counter-affidavit, there are no cases pending against the petitioners as on date to maintain the suspect sheets or to keep surveillance on the activities of the petitioners in any manner. However, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners are habitual offenders and there is every possibility of threat to the public at large. Further, the respondents have not given any specific instance of the petitioners involvement in the commission of offence subsequent to the closure/acquittal of the criminal case registered against them. 8
11. In view of the above and inasmuch as in catena of cases, the Courts are consistently directing the police to maintain the rowdy sheet/suspect sheet as per the Standing Orders of A.P. Police Manual, this Court is of the opinion that the action of the respondents police in maintaining the suspect sheets against the petitioners even though no case is pending against them cannot be said to be proper.
12. Therefore, the respondents police are directed to close the suspect sheets, if any, opened against the petitioners. It is needless to observe that if the petitioners involve in any crime in future and if there is any sufficient material to establish that their movements are required to be prevented, the respondents police are at liberty to take action against them strictly in accordance with the Standing Orders of A.P. Police Manual.
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J 28.12.2023 JSU