HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No.31737 OF 2022
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner under Article
- 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in continuing the suspect sheet against the petitioner as illegal and unconstitutional and for a consequential direction to the respondents to close the suspect sheet opened against the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. V. Venkata Mayur, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of the respondents.
3. The contentions of the petitioner are as under:
(i) At present, he is working as Driver to eke out his livelihood.
(ii) While he was working in Gold Shop, the Police had registered various crimes against him. The details of the same are as follows:2
KL,J W.P.No.31737 of 2022 Sl. Crime/C.C./S.C. Name of P.S./Court Offences Stage/ No Number Result C.C.No.773/2010 Chief Metropolitan
01. (Cr.No.14/10 of 382 IPC Acquittal Magistrate, Hyd.
Chatrinaka P.S., Hyd.
S.C.No.364/2011 V Addl. Metropolitan -do-
02. (Cr.No.38/10 of Sessions Judge, Hyd. 382 & 354 IPC Saidabad P.S., Hyd.
S.C.No.455/2012 The Spl.Judge for
382, 354 & -do-
03. (Cr.No.69/10 of Economic offences-cum-
120B IPC
Malakpet P.S., Hyd. VIII AMSJ, Hyd.
C.C.No.348/2010
-do-
(Cr.Nos.109 & XII ACMM, Hyd. 382 IPC
04. 201/10 of Nampally
P.S., Hyd.
S.C.No.586/2011
05. (Cr.No.193/10 of V AMSJ, Hyd. 382 & 354 IPC -do-
Saidabad P.S., Hyd.
C.C.No.192/2011
06. (Cr.No.91/10 of VII ACMM, Hyd -do-
382 IPC
Madannapet P.S.,
Hyd.
C.C.No.344/2011 VII ACMM, Hyd.
07. (Cr.No.253/10 of 382 IPC -do-
Saidabad P.S., Hyd.
C.C.No.555/2011
08. (Cr.No.109/10 of 382 IPC -do-
VIII ACMM, Hyd.
Moghalpura P.S.,
Hyd.
C.C.No.106/2011
09. (Cr.No.145/10 of VII ACMM, Hyd. 382 IPC -do-
Santoshnagar P.S.,
Hyd.
C.C.No.640/2010
(Cr.No.142/10 of VIII ACMM, Hyd. 382 IPC -do-
10.
Moghalpura P.S.,
Hyd.
C.C.No.108/2011
11. (Cr.No.177/10 of VII ACMM, Hyd. 382 IPC -do-
Santoshnagar P.S.,
Hyd.
C.C.No.102/2011
(Cr.No.178/10 of VII ACMM, Hyd. 382 IPC -do-
12.
Santoshnagar P.S.,
Hyd.
S.C.No.406/2012 The Spl.Judge for 382 354 & 120B
13. (Cr.No.405/10 of Economic Offences-VIII IPC -do-
Malakpet P.S., Hyd. MSJ, Hyd.
C.C.No.775/2010
14. (Cr.No.162/10 of CMM, Hyd. 382 IPC -do-
Bahadurpura P.S.,
Hyd.
3
KL,J
W.P.No.31737 of 2022
(iii) The petitioner was acquitted in all the aforesaid fourteen (14) crimes, and no case is pending against him.
(iv) Further, after 2011, no case is registered against the petitioner herein.
(v) Despite the petitioner ended in acquittal in all the aforesaid cases, the respondents are still continuing the suspect sheet against him.
(vi) In view of the above, continuing of rowdy sheet against the petitioner is illegal.
(vii) A person should be a habitual offender for the purpose of opening and maintaining of rowdy sheet, and the petitioner is not habitual offender.
(viii) Placed reliance on the principle laid down by a Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in B. Satyanarayana Reddy v.
State of Andhra Pradesh1.
1 . 2004(1) ALD (Crl.) 387 (AP) 4 KL,J W.P.No.31737 of 2022 With the said submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner sought to declare the action of the respondents in continuing the suspect sheet against the petitioner as illegal and for a consequential direction to close the above said suspect sheet opened against the petitioner.
4. The contentions of respondents as per the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3 are as under:
(i) The petitioner herein is young, energetic and unlawful character locally and continuously indulging in the commission of lawless acts involving breach of public peace and tranquility and involved in the aforesaid fourteen (14) crimes.
(ii) In view of the involvement of the petitioner in the aforesaid fourteen (14) crimes, it has become necessary on the part of police to open a suspect sheet against him to keep watch on his activities and to curtail unlawful activities.
(iii) After obtaining permission from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Falaknuma Division, Hyderabad vide C.No.528/IW/MC- DVN/2013, dated 21.07.2013, the suspect sheet has been opened 5 KL,J W.P.No.31737 of 2022 against the petitioner on the file of Station House Officer, Moghalpura Police Station, Hyderabad.
iv) Thereafter, on the point of jurisdiction, the suspect sheet has been transferred pursuant to the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Falaknuma Division, Hyderabad, vide C.No.1728(1)/OW/ACP/MC-DVN/2013, dated 20.12.2013.
v) In support of the same, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home has relied on the decision in Mohd. Sadiq Shareef v. State of Telangana2. He has also relied upon the decisions in Dhanji Ram Sharma v. Superintendent of Police, North District, Delhi Police3 and Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar4.
With the said submissions, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home sought to dismiss the present writ petition.
5. In view of the said rival submissions, it is opt to refer to the relevant clauses of the A.P. Police Manual. Maintenance of Rowdy 2 . 2019 (1) ALT 283 3 . AIR 1966 SC 1766 4 . AIR 1984 SC 1334 6 KL,J W.P.No.31737 of 2022 Sheets is governed by Police Standing Order 601 of the 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.
E. 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.
F. Persons who incite and instigate
communal/caste or political riots.
7
KL,J
W.P.No.31737 of 2022
G. 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.
H. 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."
6. Likewise, the period of retention of history sheets of suspects / rowdies is governed by Standing Order 602, which 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 8 KL,J W.P.No.31737 of 2022 or the victims are not coming forward to give complaint against him on account of threat from him."
7. Standing Order 742 of A.P. Police Standing Orders deals with situation as to classification of rowdies and opening of rowdy sheets, which 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:
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 9 KL,J W.P.No.31737 of 2022 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."
8. According to the respondents, the petitioner was involved in various crimes, and the details of which are shown in the aforesaid tabular form, and in order to curb and curtail the petitioner's unlawful activities, they are maintaining the suspect sheet against the petitioner to watch his movements from time to time.
9. As per Standing Order 601 of the A.P. Police Manual, rowdy sheet can be maintained against persons who habitually commit or attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences involving a breach of peace, disturbance to public order and security.
10. Refuting the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that all the aforesaid fourteen (14) crimes have ended in acquittal and that there are no crimes pending against him. Even then, 10 KL,J W.P.No.31737 of 2022 as per the Police Manual, if a single crime is pending, opening of a rowdy sheet against any person is illegal.
11. The Apex Court had an occasion to deal with the opening of history sheets, continuation of the same and also right to privacy in Kharak Singh v. The State of U.P.5. In the said case, rowdy sheet was opened against the petitioner therein and the same was continued. Under the guise of surveillance, the police started visiting the house of the petitioner therein against whom the rowdy sheet was opened and pending during night hours and they used to torture the petitioner. The Apex Court declared that the domiciliary visits at night hours are unconstitutional.
12. In Vijay Narain Singh4, a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court had an occasion to deal with the expression 'habitually' and held that the expression 'habitually' would mean 'repeatedly' or 'persistently' implying a thread of continuity, stringing together similar repetitive acts, and a single act or omission would not characterize as an act of 'habitual'. The Apex Court was of the opinion that to qualify as a 'habit', a person must have grown 5 . AIR 1963 SC 1295 11 KL,J W.P.No.31737 of 2022 accustomed to leading a life of crime, whereby it would be a force of habit, inherent or latent, in an individual with a criminal instinct, with a criminal disposition of mind, that makes him as dangerous to society in general.
13. In Dhanji Ram Sharma3, a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that the condition precedent for opening of a history sheet is that such person should be reasonably believed to be habitually addicted to a crime or to be an aider or abettor of crime. In order to justify the opening of a history sheet, the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined that the police officer must have a reasonable belief based on reasonable grounds.
14. In Sunkara Satyanarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh6 a learned Single Judge was concerned with the maintenance of history sheets/rowdy sheets for considerably long periods of time and held that the same would not only violate the right of privacy but also other fundamental rights of such persons under Articles - 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. Orders for opening or retention of history sheets/rowdy sheets should be passed under administrative 6 . 2000(1) ALD (Crl.) 117 (AP) 12 KL,J W.P.No.31737 of 2022 instructions and guidelines and if such orders are challenged, the competent authority has to place the reasons before the Court justifying the opening/retention of such history sheets/rowdy sheets. It would be better for the police officer concerned to record his own reasons for opening/retention of history sheets/rowdy sheets.
15. In B. Satyanarayana Reddy1, a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad held, that the involvement of a person in a solitary case would not be enough to classify such person as 'habitually' committing offences. With the said finding, the Division Bench held that solitary instance in which the appellant therein was alleged to be involved in could not constitute the basis to classify him as a 'Rowdy.'
16. In Majid Babu v. Government of A.P.7, it was held that 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. 7 . 1987(2) ALT 904 13 KL,J W.P.No.31737 of 2022
17. In Kamma Bapuji v. Station House Officer, Brahmasamudram8, wherein the persons in whose name rowdy sheets were opened were involved in two cases, but they were acquitted in both, it was sought to be contended on behalf of the police authorities that the rowdy sheets were opened during the pendency of the cases and that the acquittal therein would be of no consequence thereafter. While dealing with the said facts of the said case, the learned Judge rejected the said contention and held that rowdy sheets could not be opened in a casual and mechanical manner and a person could not be dubbed a 'habitual offender' merely because he was involved in two criminal cases.
18. In Puttagunta Pasi v. Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada9, a Division Bench confirmed, the said principle holding that a rowdy sheet could not be opened against an individual in a casual and mechanical manner, due care and caution should be taken by the police before characterizing a person as a rowdy. The Division Bench expressed agreement with the view taken by the learned Single 8 . 1997 (6) ALD 583 9 . 1998(3) ALT 55 (DB) 14 KL,J W.P.No.31737 of 2022 Judge in Kamma Bapuji8 that figuring as an accused in two crimes would not be sufficient to categorize a person as a 'habitual offender'.
19. In Mohammed Quadeer v. Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad10 it was held that the A.P. Police Standing Orders were not statutory in nature and were only a compilation of government orders issued from time to time, and that the Manual did not invest the police officers with any powers of arrest, detention, investigation of crimes etc., not specifically conferred under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or other enactments. As regards retention of a rowdy sheet, it was held that opening of a rowdy sheet against a citizen was undoubtedly fraught with serious consequences and the right to reputation under Article 21 of the Constitution could not be deprived except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The law which authorizes the police to open Rowdy Sheets and exercise surveillance would have to be very strictly construed.
20. In Yerramsetti Venugopal Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh11, a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra 10 . 1999(3) ALD 60 11 . 2020 (2) ALD (Crl.) 1048 (AP) 15 KL,J W.P.No.31737 of 2022 Pradesh at Amaravathi, referring to the above said provisions of the A.P. Police Manual and the principles laid down in the above said judgments held that the history sheet of a rowdy can be continued (i) if his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or affecting peace and tranquility in the area; and (ii) the victims are not coming forward to give complaint against him on account of threat from him.
21. In Sadath Ali v. The Commissioner of Police, Twin Cities, Hyderabad12 by referring to the above said provisions of the A.P. Police Manual and also the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgments, a learned Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, held that the requirement of involvement in at least more than two cases for inferring that he was a habitual offender was not established. The opening of the rowdy sheet in the name of the petitioner therein was therefore tainted in law in its very inception. Therefore, continuation of the said rowdy sheet by the police authorities ignoring the law laid down by this Court as well as the Supreme Court cannot be sustained. 12
. W.P. No.19194 of 2012, decided on 24.08.2015 16 KL,J W.P.No.31737 of 2022 Accordingly, with the said finding, the respondents therein were directed to close the rowdy sheet being maintained in the name of the petitioner therein.
22. In M. Laxman v. State of Telangana13, a learned Judge of this Court, after referring to the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Vijay Narain Singh4 and also referring to the Police Standing Orders supra, it was held that it is permissible to the police to open a rowdy sheet if police are of the view that, the petitioner is habitually committing offences/abetting commission of offence involving breach of peace, disturbance to the public order and security. In the said case, the petitioner was involved in five cases and he has been facing trial in the said cases. Referring to the said facts, it was held that, it cannot be said that the action of the police in opening rowdy sheet amounts to abuse or misuse of power and authority, and cannot be said that one made in illegal exercise of power and without application of mind.
23. In Kadri Ranadheer Kumar v. Principal Secretary, Home Department, Hyderabad14, wherein the petitioner was 13 . W.P. No.18364 of 2020, decided on 03.12.2020 14 . W.P. No.12845 of 2014, decided on 27.09.2019 17 KL,J W.P.No.31737 of 2022 involved in only one case for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and by relying on the principles laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in catenae of decisions, a learned Judge of this Court held that the opening of rowdy sheet and continuation of the same thereafter was in violation of the life and liberty as guaranteed to the petitioner therein under the provisions of the Constitution of India as well as contrary to the law laid down by this Court and the Apex Court.
24. Following the above said principle, this Court also ordered for the closure of rowdy sheet in Mansoor Shah Khan v. The State of Telangana rep.by its Principal Secretary Home Department, Hyderabad15.
25. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Madras High Court in G. Raman Alias Ramachandran v. The Superintendent of Police, Karur District16. In the said case, it was held that in the public interest, the Police have got a right to disseminate information, 15 . W.P. No.22980 of 2020, decided on 01.06.2021 16 . 2013 Crl.L.J. 2746 18 KL,J W.P.No.31737 of 2022 concerning law and order, and the crime. Display or publication of a photograph of a History Sheeted Rowdy may be continued to infringe upon a person's right, in so far as it affects his identity, reputation in the minds of others, but at the same time, public interest would prevail over private interest. Referring to the same, the learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that the respondents have rightly opened the suspect sheet against the petitioner and is continuing the same in the interest of public. According to him, there is no illegality.
26. In view of the law, laid down by this Court and the Apex Court in the above said judgments, coming to the facts of the case on hand, as discussed supra, fourteen (14) crimes were registered against the petitioner and out of them, nine (09) cases were acquitted by the date of opening of suspect sheet, and only five (05) cases were pending against the petitioner herein and later the same were also ended in acquittal. The offences alleged in the said five (05) cases are under Sections - 382 and 354 of IPC. Out of the said five (05) cases, two (02) cases were ended in acquittal in the year 2015 and another one in the year 2022.
19
KL,J W.P.No.31737 of 2022
27. As stated above, as per Standing Order 601 of the A.P. Police Manual, for opening and maintenance of rowdy sheet, a person against whom the same was issued should habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences involving a breach of peace, disturbance to public order and security. Further, as held by the Apex Court in Vijay Narain Singh4, the expression 'habitually' would mean 'repeatedly' or 'persistently' implying a thread of continuity, stringing together similar repetitive acts, and a single act or omission would not characterize as a 'habitual'. The Apex Court was of the opinion that to qualify as a 'habit', a person must have grown accustomed to leading a life of crime, whereby it would be a force of habit, inherent or latent, in an individual with a criminal instinct, with a criminal disposition of mind, that makes him dangerous to society in general.
28. As held in Yerramsetti Venugopal Rao11, rowdy sheet can be continued (i) if his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or affecting peace and tranquility in the area; and (ii) the victims are not coming forward to give complaint against him on account of threat from him. The said grounds are lacking in the 20 KL,J W.P.No.31737 of 2022 present case. Though in all the aforesaid cases, allegations are serious in nature, the petitioner was acquitted. Therefore, continuation of the said 'rowdy sheet' by the police authorities against the petitioners ignoring the law laid down by this Court as well as the Apex Court in the judgments cited supra cannot be sustained.
29. For the foregoing discussion, the present Writ Petition is allowed, and the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Falaknuma Division, Hyderabad vide C.No.528/IW/MC-DVN/2013, dated 21.07.2013 opening suspect sheet against the petitioner herein and the consequential proceedings C.No.1728(1)/OW/ACP/MC- DVN/2013, dated 20.12.2013 are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to close the suspect sheet against the petitioner herein. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 18th January, 2023 Mgr