THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.36572 of 2013
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondents in not closing the rowdy sheet opened against him, even after the petitioner was acquitted in all criminal cases as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and to consequently direct the respondents to close the rowdy sheet opened against him and not to harass him in any manner.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was falsely implicated in various offences by respondent No.2, namely (i) C.C.No.29 of 2022 on the file of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at LB Nagar for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 120B, 447 and 506 IPC which ended in acquittal; (ii) C.C.No.267 of 2009 on the file of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at LB Nagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 506 IPC which ended in acquittal; and (iii) S.C.No.101 of 2010 on the file of V Additional Assistant Sessions Judge (FTC), RR District, for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 342, 324 read with 34 IPC which also ended in acquittal. It is the further case of the petitioner that no crimes are pending against him in any police station as on date. However, basing on the alleged offences, the respondents 2 opened rowdy sheet against him. The main grievance of the petitioner is that even though there are no criminal cases pending against him, the respondents with a mala fide intention are continuing the rowdy sheet and due to surveillance, he is facing much inconvenience and hardship to lead a respectable and dignified life in the society.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed respondent No.3 stating that there was involvement of the petitioner in (i) Crime No.41 of 2003 for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 323, 390 IPC on the file of Pahadishareef Police Station, Cyberabad, which ultimately ended in compromise before the Lok Adalat on 01.04.2003; (ii) Crime No.21 of 2024 for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC on the file of Kamatipura Police Station, Hyderabad and the same ended in acquittal;
(iii) Crime No.61 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 120-B, 447 and 506 of IPC on the file of Pahadishareef Police Station, Cyberabad, which also ended in acquittal on 21.02.2005 vide C.C.No.29 of 2009; (iv) Crime No.284 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 506 and 290 IPC on the file of Pahadishareef Police Station, Cyberabad and the same ended in acquittal on 25.01.2005 vide C.C.No.399 of 2005; and (v) Crime No.351 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Section 110 (e) of Cr.P.C. of Pahadishareef Police Station, Cyberabad and the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Saroornagar, 3 bound over the petitioner on 20.09.2010. It is further stated that to curb and curtail the unlawful activities of the petitioner, a rowdy sheet was opened against him, after obtaining permission from the higher officials on 23.08.2004, to watch his movements from time to time in the public interest.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as on date, there are no cases pending against the petitioner and therefore, prayed to close the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner. 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 petitioner 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. Government of Andhra Pradesh 5 ; Kamma Bapuji v. Station House 1 AIR 1963 SC 1295 2 AIR 1984 SC 1334 3 2000(1) ALD (Crl.) 117 (AP) 4 2004(1) ALD (Crl.) 387 (AP) 5 1987(2) ALT 904 4 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 petitioner 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.
Maintenance of rowdy sheets is governed by Standing Order No.601 of A.P. Police Manual, Part-I, Volume II, which reads as under: 6 1997(6) ALD 583 7 1998(3) ALT 55 (DB) 8 2020(2) ALD (Crl.) 1048 (AP) 5 "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.
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"' 6
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:
(a) persons who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of, offences involving a breach of the peace;7
(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 petitioner as on date to maintain the rowdy sheet or to keep surveillance on the activities of the petitioner in any manner. However, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner is a habitual offender and there is every possibility of threat to the public at large. Further, the respondents have not given any specific instance of the petitioner's involvement in the commission of offence subsequent to the closure/acquittal of the criminal cases registered against him.
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 8 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 rowdy sheet against the petitioner even though no case is pending against him cannot be said to be proper.
12. Therefore, the respondents police are directed to close the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner. It is needless to observe that if the petitioner involves in any crime in future and if there is any sufficient material to establish that his movements are required to be prevented, the respondents police are at liberty to take action against him 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 20.09.2023 JSU