Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Darla Srikanth, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 25 February, 2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU
WRIT PETITION No.27352 of 2021
ORDER :
The Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner herein who is
aggrieved by the action of the respondents-police in opening
Rowdy Sheet with Rowdy No.157 on the file of Nellore Rural,
SPSR Nellore District.
Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner was accused in Crime
No.303 of 2014 of Nellore Rural Police Station and the charge
sheet was numbered as S.C.No.242 of 2017 on the file of VIII
Additional District & Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge for
the Trial of Offences Against Women, Nellore. In this period,
vide Police Standing Order No.601 of the A.P. Police Manual,
petitioner was arrayed as rowdy and a Rowdy sheet was
opened on 03.04.2016. this Rowdy sheet is now being
mentioned the petitioner as rowdy No.157 on the file of
Nellore Rural Police Station. Learned counsel for the
petitioner points out that the Sessions Case No.242 of 2017
on the file of VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge-Cum-
Special Judge for the Trial of Offences Against Women,
Nellore ended in acquittal. A copy of the judgment, dated
15.10.2019, was also filed as material paper. Learned
counsel for the petitioner argues that since the date of
acquittal till date i.e., from 2019 till 2022 petitioner was not
involved in any other crime and yet the respondents neither
deleted the name of the petitioner nor closed the rowdy sheet.
He relies upon the judgment of K.Suresh Babu v
Superintendent of Police1 and the judgment of learned
single Judge in W.P.No.8819 of 2018 to contend that in the
circumstances the petitioner cannot be called as habitual
offenders or rowdies. Therefore, he prays that the action of
the respondents should be set aside.
In reply, learned Government Pleader for Home argues
that after obtaining due permissions they have opened the
rowdy sheet against the petitioner since he was accused of
serious crime. Learned Government Pleader justifies the
inclusion of the petitioner in the rowdy sheet and he argues
relying upon the Police Standing Order No.602 that the mere
fact that there are no subsequent crimes is not a ground to
close the rowdy sheet. Learned Government Pleader justifies
the action of the police and states that by opening rowdy
sheet the public interest is protected.
After considering the facts that are submitted it is clear
that the case against the petitioner in S.C.No.242 of 2017
ended in acquittal and this judgment has become final. After
that there is no allegation that the petitioner is accused in
other serious crimes. No material is placed before this Court
to show that his activities prejudice the public. The two
judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, which are referred to above are squarely applicable
2016 (1) ALD Crl. 210
to the facts and circumstances of this case. Both the
judgments considered the earlier law on the subject including
the Division Bench Judgments and come to the conclusion
that the opening of a rowdy sheet on the basis of solitary
crime registered against the petitioner is not correct. In those
cases also the petitioners were acquitted in the criminal
cases. Learned single Judge held that the continuation of the
rowdy sheet is, therefore, illegal. It is held to be violative of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The
continuance of rowdy sheet against the petitioner with Rowdy
Sheet No.157 on the file of the 3rd respondent is held to be
totally contrary to law. Therefore, the respondents are
directed immediately to remove the name of the petitioner
from the rowdy sheet bearing Rowdy Sheet No.157 with
immediate effect and also remove the photograph of the
petitioner from the Rowdy Sheet Board in the Police Station.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending,
if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________
D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,J
Date:25.02.2022
Ssv
