Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Rachakonda Prakash vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 18 January, 2021

Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy

   THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                     WRIT PETITION No.17753 of 2020
ORDER:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India 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 respondent No.3 in opening Rowdy Sheet No.791-A on the file of the Kothapet Police Station and continuing the same on the file of the Nallapadu Police Station, Guntur District and continuance of the same even though the petitioner was acquitted from both the crimes S.C.No.460 of 2008 dated 25.07.2019, which was registered against him in Cr.NO.21 of 2008, and Cr.No.52 of 2009, in which also he was acquitted on 12.01.2010, on the file of the Kothapet, Police Station, Guntur, being arbitrary, illegal, and violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to close the Rowdy Sheet No.791-A on the file of the Nallapadu Police Station, Guntur, Guntur District, by removing his name from the said Rowdy sheet."

It is the case of the petitioner that on 03.03.2008 a case was

registered in Crime No.21 of 2008 of Kothapet Law and Order Police

Station for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307,

302 read with 149 of I.P.C. basing on the complaint given by one

P.Poorna Chandra Rao. Petitioner was accused No.10 in the said

crime. After completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet. The

jurisdictional Magistrate taken the case on file for the offences

punishable under Sections 120-B, 147, 148, 307 and 302 read with

149 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act and

Section 27 of Arms Act. On committal, the same was registered as

S.C.No.460 of 2008 on the file of the Court of VI Additional District

and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Guntur. After full-fledged

trial, the petitioner was found not guilty. Later, a case in crime No.52 MSM,J wp_17753_2020

of 2009 was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner was

acquitted in the said case on 12.01.2010.

After registration of Crime No.21 of 2008, respondents opened

rowdy sheet No.791-A on the file of Kothapet Law and Order Police

Station against the petitioner, subsequently the above rowdy sheet

was transferred from Kothapet to Arandelpet police Station, again

from Arandalpet Police Station to Nallapadu Police Station on

jurisdictional point and the same is being continued till date in

Nallapadu Police Station. Opening of rowdy sheet on the ground that

the petitioner is involved in two crimes is unsustainable under law

and continuation of rowdy sheet is illegal. Rowdy sheet can be

opened on the basis of order passed either by Superintendent of

Police or a Sub-Divisional Police Officer in exercise of powers

conferred under Police Standing Order 601. But in the present facts

of the case, though the petitioner involved in two crimes (referred

above), he was found not guilty and acquitted for the said offences.

Therefore, rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner cannot be

continued. It is contended that the rowdy sheet cannot be opened in

a mechanical, routine and casual manner. Great care, caution and

circumspection are required to be observed in reviewing the case of

the petitioner. The State and its instrumentalities are the custodians

of the statutory and constitutional rights of the citizens. Parliament

and the State Legislatures make the laws, keeping in view the

betterment and welfare of the people and the authorities functioning

under the same laws have the holy and sacred obligation to

discharge their duties keeping in view the object and intention

behind the said laws made by the legislature. Any deviation and

breach of the same would render the actions invalid and void. The MSM,J wp_17753_2020

actions of the authorities should necessarily be in the direction of

creating and strengthening confidence of the people in the system,

lest anarchy prevails, which would never be in the interest of the

democratic system which is guided by the rule of law. Every action of

the authorities should be inconsonance with the basic structure of

the Constitution of India which is the dream of the founding fathers

of our Constitution. Therefore, opening of rowdy sheet against the

petitioner and continuation of the same is in violation of the

fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution of India,

requested to close the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner.

Respondent No.4 filed counter denying all the material

allegations while admitting about opening of rowdy sheet against the

petitioner. It is further contended that the petitioner is involved in

the following criminal cases.

(1) Crime No.21 of 2008 on the file of Kothapet Police Station,

Guntur District was registered for the offence punishable

under Sections 120 (b), 147, 148, 307 and 302 read with

149 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 5 of Explosive Substances

Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act. (It is ended in acquittal

in S.C.No.460 of 2008 on the file of the VI Additional

District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Guntur on

25.07.2019.

(2) Crime No.52 of 2009 on the file of Kothapet police station

was registered for the offence punishable under Section

110 (e) of Cr.P.C.

(3) Crime No.488 of 2015 on the file of Kothapet police station

was registered for the offence punishable under Section

110 (e) of Cr.P.C.

MSM,J wp_17753_2020

(4) Crime No.536 of 2017 on the file of Nallapadu police station

was registered for the offence punishable under Section

110 (e) of Cr.P.C.

(5) Crime No.695 of 2018 on the file of Nallapadu police station

was registered for the offence punishable under Section

110 (e) of Cr.P.C.

It is further contended that in view of the involvement of the

petitioner in the above criminal cases, to curb and curtail his

unlawful activities, after obtaining permission from the Sub-

Divisional Police Officer, West Sub Division, Guntur Urban, a rowdy

sheet No.265/GU was opened against the petitioner on the file of

Arundelpet police station. Thereafter, based on the territorial

jurisdiction, the said rowdy sheet was transferred to Nallapadu police

station and numbered as rowdy sheet No.791-A vide proceedings in

C.No.53/D-4/DCRB-GU/2016 dated 30.07.2017.

Respondent No.4 also narrated the circumstances under which

a rowdy sheet can be opened under the orders of SP/DCP and

ACP/SDPO while extracting Andhra Pradesh Police Manual (A.P.P.M

henceforth) Standing Order 601. A rowdy sheet may be opened in

accordance with Standing Order No.601 of the Andhra Pradesh

Police Manual, Standing Order No.601 reads as follows:

"The following persons may be classified as rowdies and Rowdy Sheets (from 80) may be opened for them under the orders of the SP/DCP and ACP/SDPO.

1. Persons who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of, offence involving a breach of the peace, disturbance to public order and security.

2. Persons bound over under Sections 106, 107, 108 (1) (i) and 110

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

MSM,J wp_17753_2020

3. 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 A.P. Towns Nuisances Act.

4. Persons who habitually tease woman and girls and pass indecent remarks including offences.

5. Persons who have been charge sheeted under the offence of rape. (376, 376 A,C,D,E)

6. Persons who have been charge sheeted under the offences of PCSO act, 2012 and Acid Attacks. (326A and 326B of IPC)

7. Rowdy Sheets for the rowdies residing in one Police Station area but found frequenting the other PSs area, can be maintained at all such Police Stations.

8. 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 including "loan sharks".

9. Persons who incite, instigate and participate in communal/caste or political riots.

10. Persons detained under the AP Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land-Grabbers Act, 1966 for a period of 6 months or more.

11. Persons on whom charge sheets filed under the offence of assault on public servants, under Arms Act and such offences punishable with imprisonment of 2 years or more

12. Persons on whom charge sheets filed under the offence of murder and attempt to murder. (302 and 307 IPC)

13. Persons on whom charge sheets filed under the offence of chain snatching.

14. Persons who are convicted for offences under the Representatives of the Peoples Act, 1951, for rigging and carrying away ballot papers, Boxes and other polling material."

The reason for opening rowdy sheet is involvement of the

petitioner in various crimes. No doubt, Standing Order 601 (2) of

A.P.P.M specifies circumstances under which a history sheet can be

opened. Standing Order 602 of A.P.Police Manual stipulates that

care should be taken to see that History Sheets are opened under

this Order only for persons who are likely to turn out to be habitual

criminals or who are members of organised crime syndicates or such

organisations who had history or plan for violence and therefore, MSM,J wp_17753_2020

require close surveillance. The material and information collected to

obtain orders from the Superintendent of Police or other officers

authorised to order opening of history sheets in this category should

bring out the above requirements.

In view of the Standing Order mentioned above, opening of

rowdy sheet against this petitioner due to his involvement in above

crimes is not an illegality, requested to dismiss the petition.

Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri, learned counsel for the petitioner,

while reiterating the contentions urged in the petition, contended

that though the petitioner allegedly committed offences punishable

under Sections 120-B read with 149, 302, 307 read with 149 of

I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act and under

Section 27 (1) of Arms Act, after full-fledged trial, he was found not

guilty for the said offences. Still, the said rowdy sheet is continuing

subsequent to acquittal of the petitioner, and the petitioner

submitted representation to the Superintendent of Police, Guntur

with a request to close the rowdy sheet opened against him. When

once the petitioner was found not guilty and acquitted for the

offences (referred supra), continuation of rowdy sheet and transfer of

the same from one police station to other police station restricting

the movements of the petitioner is directly violating the right of life

and liberty of the petitioner, requested to close the rowdy sheet

opened against the petitioner while placing reliance on the judgment

of this Court dated 26.08.2020 passed in W.P.No.11475 of 2020 and

batch.

Learned Government Pleader for Home contended that during

review, the concerned police authorities did not find any ground to

close the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner. He further MSM,J wp_17753_2020

contended that due to involvement of the petitioner in various

crimes, no one is coming forward to the police station to lodge a fresh

complaint against him, therefore, in view of the public interest and to

safeguard the residents of vicinity, where the petitioner is residing,

the police authorities are continuing the rowdy sheet opened against

him, requested to dismiss the petition.

Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available

on record, the point that arose for consideration is:

"Whether the acquittal of the petitioner finding him not guilty for various offences under Sections 120-B read with 149, 147 read with 149, 148 read with 149, 302, 307 read with 149 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act and under Section 27 (1) of Arms Act in S.C.No.460 of 2008 by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Guntur is sufficient to order closure of rowdy sheet No.791-A opened against the petitioner? If so, whether a direction be issued to the respondents to close the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner?"

P O I N T:

It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner had involved in

Crime No.21 of 2008 of Kothapet Law and Order Police Station for

the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307, 302 read with

149 of I.P.C. basing on the complaint given by one P.Poorna Chandra

Rao. Petitioner is accused No.10 in the said crime. After completion

of investigation, police filed charge sheet. The jurisdictional

Magistrate taken cognizance under Sections 120-B, 147, 148, 307

and 302 read with 149 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 5 of Explosive

Substances Act and Section 27 of Arms Act. On committal, the same

was numbered as S.C.No.460 of 2008 on the file of the Court of VI MSM,J wp_17753_2020

Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Guntur.

After full-fledged trial, the petitioner was found not guilty by calendar

and judgment dated 25.07.2019. After registration of Crime No.21 of

2008 (subject matter of S.C.No.460 of 2008), respondents opened

rowdy sheet No.791-A against the petitioner. But even after acquittal

of the petitioner in S.C.No.460 of 2008 on 25.07.2019, the rowdy

sheet opened against the petitioner is being continued.

The petitioner also involved in crime No.52 of 2009 on the file

of Kothapet Police Station registered for the offence punishable

under Section 110 (e) of Cr.P.C., however, the said proceedings were

closed vide order dated 12.01.2010. But, the copy of the proceedings

in the said case is not filed along with the petition. However,

acquittal of the petitioner was not denied by the

respondents. Therefore, filing of charge sheet against the petitioner

in Crime No.21 of 2008, acquittal of the petitioner finding him not

guilty is not in dispute. Similarly closure of the proceedings under

Section 110 (e) of Cr.P.C. is also not in dispute.

The main grievance of the petitioner is that on account of

continuation of rowdy sheet opened against him, serious

inconvenience is caused to him. Undoubtedly, continuance of rowdy

sheet would restrict the movements of the petitioner.

The respondents contended that, to maintain law and order,

peace and tranquillity in the area, where the petitioner is residing,

the respondents are continuing the rowdy sheet against the

petitioner. Involvement of the petitioner in a grave offence punishable

under Section 147 and 148 of I.P.C. is a ground to open rowdy sheet

against the petitioner as per Standing Order 601. The Standing

Order 601 of A.P.Police Manual, though, prescribes certain grounds, MSM,J wp_17753_2020

did not dealt with the power of the police to close the rowdy sheet.

Therefore, closure of rowdy sheet opened against any citizen is totally

not based on the mercy of the police though considerable time is

elapsed after opening rowdy sheet and acquittal of said persons in

different crimes, which are the basis for opening of rowdy sheet.

One of the contentions raised by the State is that, no one is

coming forward to lodge a report against the petitioner due to fear

and in view of public interest and to safeguard public interest of

public of the area, where the petitioner is residing, the rowdy sheet is

being continued.

Thus, the reason assigned by the respondents is only to

safeguard the interest of the residents of the area, where the

petitioner is residing, the rowdy sheet is being continued.

Acquittal of the petitioner in Crime No.21 of 2008 (subject

matter of S.C.No.460 of 2008) and closure of Crime No.52 of 2009 is

sufficient to conclude that as on date, no criminal proceedings are

pending against the petitioner. But, the apprehension of the

respondents is that, if the rowdy sheet is closed, the petitioner may

cause disturbance to peace and public tranquillity.

After acquittal of the petitioner in S.C.No.460 of 2008 and

closure of various proceedings under Section 110 (e) of Cr.P.C., he

did not involve in any crimes, but the respondents pleaded that no

body from the locality of the petitioner is coming forward to lodge

report; however no details of any such incident are given. Therefore,

bald allegation is not sufficient to substantiate the contention of the

respondents to continue the rowdy sheet.

MSM,J wp_17753_2020

Similar question was considered by the learned single Judge of

this Court in "Yerramseti Venugopal Rao v. State of Andhra

Pradesh1" this Court held as follows:

"Therefore, a close scrutiny of Order 601 pellucidly tells us that offences like Rape, Acid attacks, offences under POCSO Act, 2012, offences involving assault on public servants, committing offences under Arms Act appear to have been rated as grave offences by the framers of the A.P. Police Manual and considered that a single charge sheet for such offences was sufficient for opening rowdy sheet. It is in this context when Serial No.12 is perused, it is mentioned therein that persons on whom charge sheets filed under the offence of murder and attempt to murder (302 & 307 IPC), can be classified as rowdies and rowdy sheets can be opened. There is no gain saying that the offence of murder and its attempt are grave offences. So, going by the previous entries in Serial Nos.5, 6, & 11, it can be said that a single charge sheet for the offence of murder (302 IPC) or attempt to murder (307 IPC) is suffice to open a rowdy sheet. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, plural noun "charge sheets" is employed because two distinct offences i.e., murder and attempt to murder are referred there. In my considered view, Serial No.12 can also be interpreted otherwise as- "persons on whom charge sheet is filed under the offence of murder or attempt to murder (302 & 307 IPC)". Therefore, this Court agrees with the contention of the learned Government Pleader that a single charge sheet is suffice. Even otherwise, as submitted by him, the term "charge sheets" can be interpreted as singular noun "charge sheet" by virtue of Section 3(35) of the A.P. General Clauses Act, 1891 which says that words in the singular shall include the plural and words in the plural shall include the singular. In the case of Rinku Alias Hukku (supra 4), the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court interpreted the word "activities" appearing in Section 2(c) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-social Activities Prevention Act, 1986 as "activity". In the instant case, if the word "charge sheets" is interpreted as "charge sheet", then Serial No.12 shall be read as "Persons on whom charge sheet is filed under the offence of murder or attempt to murder (302 or 307 IPC). For the aforesaid reasons I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for petitioners that more than one charge sheet is essential"

In view of law declared, filing of single charge sheet for the

offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 I.P.C is sufficient to

enable the police to open rowdy sheet against this petitioner.

However, it was not the contention of the respondents in the entire

1 Writ Petition Nos.17667, 17668, 18301 & 18305 of 2019 dated 12.05.2020 MSM,J wp_17753_2020

counter affidavit, but the contention is that, in case the rowdy sheet

is directed to be closed, the petitioner may cause disturbance to the

peace and tranquillity of the area, where the petitioner is residing.

Similarly, no person is coming forward to lodge a report against this

petitioner apprehending danger in the hands of the petitioner, but

this was also considered by the learned single Judge of this Court in

"Yerramseti Venugopal Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh"