Telangana High Court
Karre Jagadish Chowdary vs The State Of Telangana on 10 January, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO.30346 OF 2023
ORDER:
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to declare the action of the official respondents in opening Suspect/Rowdy Sheet against the petitioner on the file of the official respondents 3 to 5, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, to direct the official respondents to drop all further proceedings by removing/withdrawing Suspect/Rowdy Sheet against the petitioner.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was falsely implicated as accused in Crime No.233 of 2019, dated 19.10.209 registered by P.S., C.C.S., Hyderabad under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the same was numbered as C.C.No.12214 of 2020, dated 19.12.2020 on the file of the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. Earlier, the police of Chikkadpally P.S. registered a crime vide FIR.No.167 of 2010 under Sections 468, 420 and 417 IPC against him and after filing of charge sheet, the case was numbered as C.C.No.523 of 2011 on the file of the IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at 2 CVBR,J W.P.NO.30346 OF 2023 Nampally, Hyderabad and after full-fledged trial, the IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, acquitted him from the said charges on 17.08.2012. Likewise, another case in Crime No.186 of 2012 for the offences under Sections 471, 419, 420 and 468 IPC of P.S. Nacharam was registered against him, which was numbered as C.C.No.402 of 2012 on the file of the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court at L.B.Nagar and in the said case also, the petitioner was acquitted from the charges on 24.11.2015. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though one case i.e. C.C.No.12214 of 2020 on the file of the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad is pending against him, the police, in the name of interrogation, have been frequently calling him to Police Station and making him to wait hours together on suspicion and also coming to his house in the midnight and calling him to come down and taking his pictures. It is further submitted that on 13.12.2021, he received a call from the fourth respondent asking him whether he is staying in the same house or not and warned him to settle the matter in Crime No.233 of 2019, in which case he was falsely implicated and threatened him to implicate in similar offences if he did not oblige his words. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though investigation has 3 CVBR,J W.P.NO.30346 OF 2023 been completed, charge sheet has been filed and the said case is pending for trial, the respondent police authorities, at the instance of the complainant's family, have been harassing, threatening and trying to detain him in the police station under the guise of the said case without any reasons and thereby, he is facing much inconvenience and hardship.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein, inter aila stating that the petitioner is a rowdy sheeter and in this connection, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Automobile Team, CCS, DD, Hyderabad, accorded permission to open Suspect Sheet against the petitioner and accordingly, suspect sheet was opened against him on 01.11.2021 and on the point of jurisdiction, it was transferred to the fifth respondent-Police Station on 25.11.2021 and it stood renewed up to 31.12.2023. It is further contended that the petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.167 of 2010 of Chikkadpally Police Station, Hyderabad, for the offences under Sections 420, 460 and 471 IPC. The said crime was charge- sheeted vide C.C.No.523 of 2011 on the file of the IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad at Nampally but the said case ended in acquittal on 17.08.2012. It is further contended that the petitioner is accused No.3 in Crime No.186 of 2012 of 4 CVBR,J W.P.NO.30346 OF 2023 Nacharam Police Station for the offences under Sections 420, 419, 468 and 471 IPC, which was ended in acquittal vide C.C.No.402 of 2012 on the file of the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar. It is further submitted that the police are not calling him to the Police Station and not making him to wait hours together and also not visiting his house in the midnight and not calling him to come down and not taking his pictures. The police are not interfering with the life and liberty of the petitioner except maintaining suspect sheet against the petitioner and they are not harassing him or calling him to the Police Station. It is further submitted that due to elections, the Special Executive Magistrate, Hyderabad vide Mc.No.B/1147/2023, dated 17.10.2023 issued orders binding over the petitioner for keeping good behavior for a period of one year on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/-. The petitioner, without disclosing the said fact, filed the present Writ Petition falsely contending that CCS Police and Narayanaguda Police are frequently visiting his house at day and night.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that except a solitary case which is pending for trial, there are no cases pending against the petitioner and therefore, prayed to close the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner. In support 5 CVBR,J W.P.NO.30346 OF 2023 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 further 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 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. 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 6 1997(6) ALD 583 7 1998(3) ALT 55 (DB) 6 CVBR,J W.P.NO.30346 OF 2023 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:
"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
8 2020(2) ALD (Crl.) 1048 (AP) 7 CVBR,J W.P.NO.30346 OF 2023 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"'
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 8 CVBR,J W.P.NO.30346 OF 2023 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;
(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 9 CVBR,J W.P.NO.30346 OF 2023
(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, except the solitary case which is pending for trial, 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 subsequently.
11. It is settled legal position that involvement of a person in a solitary criminal case is not sufficient to classify such a person as a habitual offender under Clause (A) of Standing Order 601 of A.P.Police Manual.
10 CVBR,J W.P.NO.30346 OF 2023
12. In view of the above settled legal position and inasmuch as in catena of cases, the Courts are consistently directing the police to maintain the rowdy sheet as per the Standing Orders of A.P. Police Manual, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the opening of the rowdy sheet in the name of the petitioner and continuance of the same thereafter is in violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
13. 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.
14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
___________________________ C.V. BHASKAR REDDY, J 10th January 2024 RRB