Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Nallagorla Rama Rao , vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 2 November, 2021

Bench: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy

                                 1
                                                               CMR, J.
                                                    W.P.No.8590 of 2021




 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

                   Writ Petition No.8590 of 2021

ORDER:

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, is filed seeking mandamus declaring the action of

respondents 2 to 4 in not closing the rowdy sheet bearing

No.841 opened against the petitioner even though no crimes are

pending against him at present, as illegal, arbitrary and

violative of Standing Order No.742 of the A.P. Police Standing

Orders, and consequently, to direct respondents 2 to 4 to close

the rowdy sheet bearing No.841 opened against the petitioner.

2) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondents 1 to 4.

3) Factual matrix of the writ petition may be stated as

follows:

(a) The petitioner claims to be the resident of Mangalagiri,

Guntur District. Earlier a case in Crime No.289 of 2013 of

Mangalagiri Rural Police Station, was registered against him for

the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 147, 148 and

302 r/w.149 of IPC. He is A-2 in the said crime. After full-

fledged trial that was conducted in Sessions Case No.549 of

2015 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge-cum-IV

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, against the

petitioner and other accused, he was acquitted of all the said

charges on 04.01.2018. A case in Crime No.161 of 2012 of

Mangalagiri Police Station, for the offence punishable under

CMR, J.

W.P.No.8590 of 2021

Sections 326 r/w.34 of IPC was also registered against him

along with other accused. In the trial conducted in the said

case in C.C.No.477 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Junior

Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, the petitioner was convicted along

with other accused and was sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of

Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one

month. Appeal preferred thereagainst the said judgment of

conviction by the petitioner was allowed setting aside the said

judgement of conviction of the trial Court for the offence

punishable under Sections 326 r/w.34 of IPC. However, he was

convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 324 r/w.34

of IPC and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/- for the

said offence. In another case registered against him in Crime

No.268 of 2011, the matter was compromised in the Lok Adalat

and the petitioner was acquitted of the said offence under

Section 320(8) Cr.P.C.

(b) On account of the pendency of the aforesaid cases

against him, the police opened rowdy sheet bearing No.841

against the petitioner in the year 2013. However, it is stated

that even after the petitioner was acquitted in the murder case

and even after imposing only fine in other two cases, that the

said rowdy sheet is still continued contrary to the Police

Standing Orders. Therefore, the petitioner sought for

declaration as stated above that the action of the respondent

police officials in not closing the said rowdy sheet is illegal and

CMR, J.

W.P.No.8590 of 2021

arbitrary and consequently, sought direction to the police

officials to close the said rowdy sheet.

4. The 2nd respondent Sub-Divisional Police Officer, North

Sub-Division, Guntur Urban District, filed counter-affidavit on

behalf of all the respondents. It is pleaded that even though

the petitioner was acquitted in a case registered against him for

the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, but he was

found guilty in other two cases registered against him for the

offences punishable under Sections 324 r/w.34 of IPC and he

was also sentenced to pay fine in the said two cases. It is

further pleaded that as per Standing Order 601 of the A.P.

Police Standing Orders, rowdy sheet can be opened against the

(1) 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; (2) persons bound

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

Cr.P.C; (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. Town Nuisances Act; (4) persons who habitually tease

women and girls and pass indecent remarks including offences

under Sections 354-A, 354-B, 354-C and 354-D of IPC;

(5) persons who have been charge-sheeted for the offence of

rape punishable under Section 376 of IPC; and (6) persons who

have been charge-sheeted for the offences under the POCSO

Act, 2012 and acid attacks punishable under Sections 326-A

CMR, J.

W.P.No.8590 of 2021

and 326-B of IPC. It is further pleaded that even against

persons who indulge in intimidating 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, also

rowdy sheet can be opened. It is finally pleaded that under

Standing Order No.602(2) of A.P. Police Standing Orders,

merely because a person is not shown as accused in the

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

ended in acquittal, nothing precludes to continue the rowdy

sheet opened against him if it is the considered view of the

police that his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of

the 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.

5. Therefore, it is pleaded that as the petitioner earlier

involved in several cases, due to fear the victims are not coming

forward to give complaint against him and as such, in view of

the conduct of the petitioner as there is every likelihood of the

petitioner indulging in acts of disturbing public peace and

tranquillity that the rowdy sheet that was opened against him

is being continued despite the fact that he was acquitted in

murder case and only fine was imposed in other two cases. So,

it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

CMR, J.

W.P.No.8590 of 2021

6. The fact that in a case registered against the petitioner for

the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC that he was

acquitted after full-fledged trial is not disputed before this

Court. Similarly, in other two cases that only fine was imposed

against him for the offence punishable under Sections 324

r/w.34 of IPC is also not disputed. The rowdy sheet was

opened against the petitioner when the aforesaid three cases

were pending against him in the year 2013. However, even

after the petitioner was acquitted in the murder case and other

two cases were disposed of by imposing fine, the said rowdy

sheet is being still continued without closing the same only on

the ground that there is likelihood of the petitioner being

indulged in acts of disturbing public peace and tranquillity.

However, no material is produced before this Court to

substantiate the said version of the respondent police officials

that the petitioner has been indulging in any such acts of

disturbing the public peace or tranquillity. Mere bald assertion

sans without any material to substantiate the fact that the

petitioner has been in fact indulging in any such acts of

disturbing public peace or tranquillity by itself is not sufficient

to justify continuance of the rowdy sheet that was opened

against him at present.

7. This Court while dealing with Standing Order No.602 of

the A.P. Police Standing Orders in W.P.No.24672 of 2020, at

para.No.7 of the order, dated 16.03.2021, held as follows:

CMR, J.

W.P.No.8590 of 2021

"......So, three grounds are contemplated to continue the rowdy sheet under Standing Order 602(2) of the A.P. Police Standing Orders viz., (i) that the concerned authority must have material before him that the activities of the petitioner are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order; (ii) his conduct must be of such a nature which affecting the peace and tranquillity in the area; and

(iii) that the victims are not coming forward to give any complaint against him on account of threat from him. Existence of any one of these three grounds is sine qua non for extending the period of rowdy sheet from time to time even though when the petitioner is not figured as an accused in any pending case.....".

Further held as follows:

"...As can be seen from the material available on record, the respondent police officials did not produce any order passed extending the period of rowdy sheet based on the aforesaid three grounds contemplated under Standing Order 602(2) of the A.P. Police Standing Orders. Mere making a bald assertion in the counter-affidavit sans producing any material to substantiate the said version cannot be countenanced to justify extension of the rowdy sheet against the petitioner. No material whatsoever is produced before this Court to substantiate the version of the respondents that the petitioner has involved in any activity which is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or which may affect the peace and tranquillity in the area....."

Therefore, the Court has set aside the rowdy sheet that was

opened against the petitioners therein.

8. The aforesaid analogy squarely applies to the present

facts of the case also. In this case also, as already observed

supra, the respondent police officials did not produce any

material to justify extension of rowdy sheet on the ground that

the petitioner has been indulging in any activity which is

prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or which may

affect the public peace and tranquillity in the area.

CMR, J.

W.P.No.8590 of 2021

9. Therefore, there is absolutely no justification in