Telangana High Court
Syed Gulam Samdani Quadri Alias Moulana ... vs The State Of Telangana on 31 January, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.31625 of 2023
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent No.5 in opening and continuing the history sheet against the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and to consequently direct respondent No.5 to close the history sheet opened against him.
2. The case of the petitioner is that in the year 2020 acting on a complaint lodged by one Mr. Q.M.Minhajuddin @ Shaikh Fasihuddin, who is a Islamic Preacher against him, a case in Crime No.73 of 2020 has been registered on the file of Shahalibanda Police Station, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 295(A), 505(2), 153(A) of IPC, wherein charge sheet has been filed vide C.C.No.4826 of 2020 on the file of XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and the same is pending for trial. It is the further case of the petitioner that he was falsely implicated in another case vide Crime No.48 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 506 of IPC, wherein charge sheet was filed vide C.C.No.6657 of 2021 on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and the same is also pending for trial. It is his further case that on 28.10.2023 he came 2 across a news article published in Munsif Daily Newspaper and Deccan Chronicle Daily News paper that the Shahalibanda Police, Hyderabad, respondent No.5 herein, opened history sheet against him based on the aforesaid two cases, without any cause of action. The main grievance of the petitioner is that even though there are no other criminal cases pending against him, except the aforesaid two cases, respondent No.5 with a mala fide intention is continuing the history 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 by respondent No.4 herein stating inter alia that the petitioner is of unlawful character and continuously indulging in the commission of lawless acts involving breach of public peace and tranquility and as per the available records, the petitioner was involved in (i) Crime No.73 of 2020 registered on the file of Shah Ali Banda Police Station, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 295(A), 505(2), 153(A) of IPC, wherein charge sheet has been filed vide C.C.No.4826 of 2020 on the file of XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad at Nampally and the same is pending for trial; (ii) Crime No.156 of 2005 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 506, 420 of IPC and Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on the file of Golconda Police Station, 3 Hyderabad, which has been referred as lack of evidence and as such after completion of investigation, final report has been filed on 28.08.2005 before the concerned Court; (iii) Crime No.48 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 506 of IPC, wherein charge sheet was filed vide C.C.No.12615 of 2021 on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and the same has been settled before Lok Adalat vide Crl.M.P.No.1046 of 2022; and (iv) Crime No.23 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 506 of IPC on the file of Hussaini Alam Police Station wherein charge sheet has been filed on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, vide C.C.No.6657 of 2021 and the same is pending for trial. It is further stated that in view of involvement of the petitioner in the above criminal cases, in order to curb and curtail the unlawful activities of the petitioner, as per the proceedings issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Chatrinaka Division, Hyderabad, vide proceedings No.321/1W/ACP/CNK-DVN/2023 dated 25.10.2023, the rowdy sheet has been opened against the petitioner on the file of Shah Ali Banda Police Station, Hyderabad, respondent No.5 herein and the same is being maintained against the petitioner. It is stated that in view of pendency of above two criminal cases, retaining the rowdy sheet is 4 essential to watch the activities of the petitioner and as such prayed this Hon'ble Court to dismiss the writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that except two cases which are pending trial, 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 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 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) 5 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:
"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.8
2020(2) ALD (Crl.) 1048 (AP) 6 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"' 7
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;
(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);8
(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. The erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Majid Babu vs. Government of A.P. 9 observed as under:-
"Two instances would not make a person a habitual offender. At least more than two instances should be present before a person can be described as habitual offender. Merely because the two persons are figuring as accused in respect of two crimes registered by the Police, no inference can be drawn that they are habitual offenders."
11. In the present case, as per the counter-affidavit, the petitioner is involved in four cases, out of which one case was closed as lack of evidence, one case was settled before Lok Adalat and the remaining two cases are pending for trial. It is not the case of the respondents that commission of these offences has resulted in breach of peace in village or 9 1987(2) ALT 904 9 town, as the case may be and as such involvement in these cases would not attract clause (a) of Standing Order 742 of A.P. Police Manual. Viewed from any angle, the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner is ultra vires the Police Standing Orders. The action of the respondents in opening rowdy sheet against the petitioner is illegal and unconstitutional.
12. Therefore, the respondents police are directed to close the rowdy sheet/history 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.
13. 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 31.01.2024 JSU/SCS