Telangana High Court
Shayzan Khan vs The State Of Telangana on 26 March, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.6181 of 2024
ORDER:
This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner, seeking the following relief:
"...to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in opening of a Rowdy Sheet against the petitioner and continuing the same as illegal, improper, arbitrary and violative of the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court and consequently direct the respondents to close the same forthwith..."
2. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No.5 registered a case in Crime No.934/2017 for the offences under Sections 307, 302 r/w 34 IPC and Section 25(1)(A) of Arms Act, against him and others and after completion of investigation, the respondent No.5 laid charge sheet and the same was numbered as S.C.No.997/2018 on the file of Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-FAC-III Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District and after full-fledged trial, the said Sessions Case ended in acquittal vide judgment dated 03.11.2023. It is further case of the petitioner that as on date, no crimes are pending against him in any police station. However, basing on the alleged offences, the respondents opened rowdy sheet against him. The main grievance of the petitioner is that even though there are no criminal cases pending against him, the 2 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 by the respondent No.4, inter alia stating that as the petitioner was involved in Crime No.934/2017 registered for the offences under Sections 307, 302, r/w 34 IPC and Section 25(1)(A) of Arms Act on the file of respondent No.5, a rowdy sheet was opened against him on 15.10.2018 and the same is renewed and continued till date.
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 submissions, 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 Hon'ble 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. 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 1 AIR 1963 SC 1295 2 AIR 1984 SC 1334 3 2000(1) ALD (Crl.) 117 (AP) 3 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 to 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. The 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.
5. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents, has submitted that petitioner is continuously indulging in commission of lawless acts involving 4 2004(1) ALD (Crl.) 387 (AP) 5 1987(2) ALT 904 6 1997(6) ALD 583 7 1998(3) ALT 55 (DB) 8 2020(2) ALD (Crl.) 1048 (AP) 4 breach of public peace and tranquility and he was involved in Crime No.934/2017 for the offences under Section 307, 302 r/w 34 IPC and Section 25(1)(A) of Arms Act and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed vide S.C.No.997/2018 and the said case ended in acquittal vide judgment dated 03.11.2023 passed by the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-FAC-III Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District. It is further submitted that in view of the involvement of the Petitioner in the above criminal case, it has become incumbent on the part of Police to open a rowdy sheet against the petitioner to keep watch on his activities and to curtail unlawful activities. It is submitted that as per the proceedings of Assistant Commissioner of Police, Rajendranagar, Cyberabad Commissionerate, vide No.28/RJNR/Rowdy/CYB/2018 dated 15.10.2018, Rowdy Sheet has been opened against the Petitioner on the file of Mailardevpally Police Station, and the same has been renewed and is being continued till date. It is further submitted that except maintaining rowdy sheet to keep surveillance on the activities of the Petitioner, the Respondent No.5 did not harass the Petitioner nor interfered with his personal life and liberty.
6. It is apt to refer to the relevant Standing Orders of A.P. Police Manual. Maintenance of rowdy sheets is governed by Standing Order 5 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.
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. 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:
6
"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."
8. 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
(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."7
9. In the present case, 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. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
8
12. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
_________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 26.03.2024 scs