Avvaru Chandra Mouli Chandra vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 5221 AP

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AT AMARAVATI
                                *****

               WRIT PETITION No.20881 OF 2021

Between

Avvaru Chandra Mouli @ Chandra,
S/o. Avvaru Venkateswarlu, aged 45 years,
Occ: Tailor, R/o. 7-14-27/2, Srinivasa Nagar,
Near Ramulavari Temple, Perala, Chirala,
Prakasam District                                     ... Petitioner


                                 and

The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Represented by its Principal Secretary,
Home Department, Secretariat,
Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District
and three others
                                                    .. Respondents


DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 15-12-2021


THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY


1.    Whether Reporters of Local                Yes/No
      newspapers may be allowed to see
      the Judgments?

2.    Whether the copies of judgment            Yes/No
      may be marked to Law
      Reports/Journals?

3.    Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship           Yes/No
      wish to see the fair copy of the
      Judgment?



            _______________________________________
            CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J.

* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

+ WRIT PETITION No.20881 OF 2021

% DATE: 15-12-2021

# Avvaru Chandra Mouli @ Chandra, S/o. Avvaru Venkateswarlu, aged 45 years, Occ: Tailor, R/o. 7-14-27/2, Srinivasa Nagar, Near Ramulavari Temple, Perala, Chirala, Prakasam District ... Petitioner

Vs.

$ The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District and three others ... Respondents

! Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Akurathi Rama Krishna ^Counsel for respondents : A.G.P. for Home

< Gist:

 Head Note:

? CASES REFERRED: NIL.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

WRIT PETITION No.20881 OF 2021

ORDER:-

This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus, declaring the

action of respondents in opening rowdy sheet and continuing the

same, as illegal, irrational and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the

Constitution of India and consequently prayed to quash the said

rowdy sheet.

2. The factual matrix of the writ petition may be stated as

follows:-

An F.I.R. in Crime No.87 of 2002 was registered against the

petitioner by Chirala I Town Police for the offences punishable

under Sections 307, 324 r/w 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

(for short "I.P.C."). After completion of investigation, eventually

police filed charge sheet against the petitioner in S.C.No.402 of

2002 on the file of learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Chirala of

Prakasam District. It is alleged that the trial in the said case was

completed and the petitioner was not found guilty for the said

offences along with other accused and that the trial Court

acquitted the petitioner of the said offences as per the judgment

passed to that effect on 20.12.2003. No other case was registered

against the petitioner and no criminal case is pending against him.

It is stated that the respondent-police opened a rowdy sheet No.43

against the petitioner during the pendency of the said criminal

case against him. However, it is stated that even after the

petitioner was acquitted in the said criminal case, that the police

did not close the said rowdy sheet and has been continuing the

same illegally. It is also stated that police are summoning the

petitioner to the police station frequently since the rowdy sheet is

pending against him and has been interfering with his personal

liberty. Therefore, the petitioner sought for the aforesaid reliefs in

the writ petition.

3. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, while

admitting that the petitioner was acquitted in the said case in

S.C.No.402 of 2002 on the file of learned Assistant Sessions

Judge, Chirala of Prakasam District as per the judgment

pronounced on 20.12.2003, it is alleged that about several crimes

were registered against the petitioner i.e. (1) Crime No.85/2007

under Section 110(E) Cr.P.C., (2) Crime No.83/2013 under Section

110(E) Cr.P.C., (3) Crime No.32/2014 under Section 110(E)

Cr.P.C., (4) Crime No.39/2014 under Section 109 Cr.P.C., (5)

Crime No.18/2017 under Section 110(E) Cr.P.C., (6) Crime

No.36/2019 under Section 110(E) Cr.P.C., (7) Crime No.139/2019

under Section 151 Cr.P.C., (8) Crime No.51/2020 under Section

110(E) Cr.P.C. and (9) Crime No.228/2020 under Section 110(E)

Cr.P.C., as he has been indulging in unlawful activities disturbing

the public peace and tranquility and that the Sub-Divisional Police

Officer of Chirala Sub-Division issued instructions to the Sub-

Inspector of Police of I Town Police Station, Chirala to open rowdy

sheet against the petitioner and others and accordingly the rowdy

sheet has been opened and thereafter the said rowdy sheet is

being continued and renewed from time to time.

4. It is further stated that as per Order No.601 of A.P. Police

Manual, rowdy sheets can be opened under the orders of the

S.D.P.O. against a person, who habitually commits, attempt to

commit or abet the commission of offences involving a breach of

peace, disturbances to public order and security and persons

bound over under Sections 106, 107, 108(1), 110(e) and 110(g) of

Cr.P.C. It is also stated that under Police Standing Order

No.602(2), even if a person is not merely figured as accused in the

previous five years after the last case in which he was involved it

will not preclude the police from continuing the rowdy sheet.

Therefore, it is stated that there are no merits in the writ petition

and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondents 1 to 4.

6. The rowdy sheet in question was opened against the

petitioner when a criminal case under Section 307 of I.P.C. was

pending against him. Admittedly, the petitioner was acquitted in

the said criminal case. However, the rowdy sheet is being

continued against him and same is being renewed from time to

time even after his acquittal in the said criminal case. The

respondent-police seeks to justify the said continuation of the

rowdy sheet and renewing the same from time to time even after

acquittal of the petitioner from the said criminal case on the

ground that the proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. are

initiated against the petitioner and that about several cases are

pending now against him under Sections 110(e), 109 and 151 of

Cr.P.C. on the ground that he is indulging in activities of

disturbing public peace and tranquility.

7. The respondents have invoked the Order No.601 of A.P.

Police Manual to continue the rowdy sheet against the

petitioner. A perusal of the said Order No.601 of A.P. Police

Manual, makes it manifest that only when a person is bound

over under Sections 106, 107, 108(1), 110(e) and 110(g) of

Cr.P.C., that a rowdy sheet can be opened against him and the

same can be continued. In the instant case, admittedly, the

petitioner was not bound over under Sections 106, 107, 108(1),

110(e) and 110(g) of Cr.P.C.

8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home fairly

concedes that he is not yet bound over as per the orders passed

by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or Executive Magistrate. Only

proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. in the above cases are

pending against him. Still enquiry has to be conducted under

law and ultimately an order is required to be passed by the Sub-

Divisional Magistrate/Executive Magistrate as the case may be

binding over the petitioner if it is ultimately found that he has

been really indulging in any activity of disturbing the public

peace and tranquility. Unless such an order is passed binding

over the petitioner under the aforesaid provisions, it cannot be

held that the petitioner has been indulging in activities of

disturbing the public peace and tranquility. Order No.601 of

A.P. Police Manual did not stipulate that on the ground of mere

pendency of any such proceedings under Sections 106, 107,

108(1), 110(e) and 110(g) of Cr.P.C. etc., that a rowdy sheet can

be opened or continued against a person. All that it is stated is

that only when a person is bound over under the aforesaid

provisions of law, that the rowdy sheet can be opened and

continued.

9. As already noticed supra, as no such order binding over the

petitioner under the aforesaid provisions of law, the respondents

cannot invoke Order No.601 of A.P. Police Manual to justify their

act of continuing the rowdy sheet against the petitioner.

10. Further, the respondents also cannot invoke Standing Order

No.602(2) as there is no material on record to substantiate the fact

that the petitioner is involved in any such activity which is

disturbing the public peace and tranquility and that continuation

of rowdy sheet is essential to safeguard the interests of any

residents of the locality. Except making a bald assertion to that

effect, there is absolutely no material on record to substantiate the

said contention. Therefore, the said contention sans any material

to substantiate the same cannot be countenanced.

11. Therefore, there are absolutely no valid grounds emanating

from the record justifying the continuation of rowdy sheet against

the petitioner.

12. Resultantly, this Writ Petition is allowed declaring that the

continuation of rowdy sheet against the petitioner as illegal and

violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Consequently,

the respondents are directed to forthwith close the said rowdy

sheet that was opened against the petitioner. There shall be no

order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this

Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

_____________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

Date : 15-12-2021 Note: L.R. copy to be marked (B/o) ARR

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

WRIT PETITION No.20881 OF 2021

Date : 15-12-2021

ARR