Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Chenna Prasanth vs The State Of Ap on 1 March, 2024
[3311]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: AMARAVATI
FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10331 OF 2023
Between:
Chenna Prasanth S/o late Gangaraju, Aged 39 years,
Kakinada District.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Home Department, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District and others
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS
This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the
Memorandum of grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the
arguments of Sri R. Arun Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioner and the
learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home (AP) on behalf of the
Respondents.
The Court made the following:
2
BSB, J
W.P.No.10331 of 2023
ORDER:
This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, is filed seeking the following relief:
".....to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or
direction declaring the action of the respondents in opening the
rowdy sheet No.431/2021 against the petitioner in the 4th
respondent police station and continuing the same as illegal,
arbitrary and violative of Article 14, Article 19(1)(d) and Article
21 of the Constitution of India and pass such other order or
further orders as this Hon'ble Court feels deem fit and proper in
the circumstances of the case."
2. Heard Sri R. Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Sri N. Nirmal, learned Assistant Government Pleader
for Home-I appearing for the respondents.
3. The case of the petitioner, briefly stated, is as follows:
(a) A case in Crime No.156 of 2017 on the file of Tuni Police
Station was registered against the petitioner and others for the
offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 417 & 420 IPC. The
police, after conducting investigation, filed charge sheet which was
later numbered as S.C.No.112 of 2018 on the file of the Court of
VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram, East
Godavari District. After full-fledged trial, the petitioner was
convicted and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for ten (10)
years, vide judgment dated 13.12.2019. Aggrieved thereby, the
BSB, J
petitioner preferred an appeal before this Court challenging the
judgment of conviction passed in S.C.No.112 of 2018 in Criminal
Appeal No.958 of 2019. This Court, while granting bail, suspended
the substantive sentence imposed on the petitioner until disposal of
the appeal, vide order, dated 18.12.2019, passed in I.A.No.1 of
2019 in Crl.A.No.958 of 2019.
(b) While so, the 4th respondent opened a rowdy sheet against
the petitioner in the year 2021 vide rowdy sheet No.431, dated
27.06.2021, and the said rowdy sheet is being continued from the
year 2021 in Tuni Police Station.
(c) The petitioner is leading peaceful life and never involved in
any act of breach of peace, disturbance to public order and security.
He is not a habitual offender and is living peacefully in the society.
This Court suspended the substantive sentence vide order, dated
18.12.2019, until disposal of the criminal appeal, and in spite of the
same, inclusion of his name in the rowdy sheet on the basis of sole
conviction which is challenged and is pending before this Court is
illegal, arbitrary.
4. A counter affidavit was filed by the 3rd respondent contending
that mere suspension of sentence in criminal appeal cannot be
construed to mean that the petitioner is exonerated from the
criminal misconduct and that the petitioner cannot seek for
BSB, J
cancelling the suspect sheet unless his conviction is set aside by the
appellate Court. Even then, the 3 rd respondent contends that the
petitioner has scant respect towards law and he is involved in
another case vide Crime No.143 of 2019 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 420, 323, 506 IPC of Tuni Town Police
Station, Peddapuram Sub Division, Kakinada District and this case is
pending vide C.C.No.8 of 2020 on the file of the Court of the
Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tuni. It is further
contended that to curb and curtail unlawful activities of the
petitioner, rowdy-sheet was opened vide R.S.No.431 on 31.05.2020
against the petitioner after granting permission from the Sub
Divisional Police Officer, Peddapuram Sub Division and the opening
and continuation of the rowdy-sheet is in accordance with the police
standing orders 601 and 602(2) which read as follows:
" As per A.P. Police Manual Order No.601, the following
persons may be classified as rowdies and Rowdy sheets may be
opened for them under the orders of the SP/DCP/SDPO.
1. Persons, who habitually commit, attempt to commit or
abet the commission of offences involving a breach of the
peace, disturbances to public order and security.
2. Persons bound over under Sections 106, 107, 108(1)
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
AP Town Nuisances Act.
BSB, J
4. Persons who habitually tease women and girls and pass
indecent remarks including offences U/Sc 354-A, B, C and 354
D IPC.
5. Persons who have been charge sheeted under the
offence of Rape (376, 376A C, D, E)
6. Persons who have been charge sheeted under the
offences of POCSO Act, 2012 and Acid Attacks 9326A and 326B
of IPC).
7. Rowdy Sheets for the rowdies residing in one police
station area but found frequenting the other police stations
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, 1986 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 other
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 under the Representation of
People Act, 1951 for rigging, carrying away, damaging ballot
paper, boxes and polling material.
BSB, J
Standing Order 602(2) says that "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 tranquility in the area or the victims are
not coming forward to give complaint against him on account of
threat from him."
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that mere
pendency of one case against the petitioner is not sufficient to open
or continue the rowdy-sheet and that the allegation of misconduct
or the attitude of the petitioner posing threat to the law and order in
the society is not supported by any material except the bald
assertion in the counter affidavit, and therefore, the rowdy-sheet
opened against the petitioner shall be quashed and in this regard,
learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of
this Court in Tadiboyina Peraiah Mahesh Vs. The State of
Andhra Pradesh1.
6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home
representing the respondents submitted that each case is to be
examined in the light of facts and circumstances and that if at all
the petitioner has any grievance, he may approach the appropriate
authority to close the rowdy-sheet and thereby, the authority will
W.P.No.24672 of 2020, dated 16.03.2021
BSB, J
examine the representation by conducting due enquiry and take
appropriate decision. He further stated that the Standing Order
would permit the opening and continuation of rowdy-sheet not only
when case(s) is (are) pending but also even after disposal of
case(s) and that the rowdy-sheet would be opened only in the
interest of maintaining the law and order situation, but not with any
mala fides. He further submitted that a person against whom
rowdy-sheet is opened would be given counselling and would not be
subjected to any kind of harassment at all.
7. A perusal of the Standing Order conditions extracted supra
would support the contention of the learned Assistant Government
Pleader for Home-I that the legality of opening or continuation of a
rowdy-sheet cannot be challenged merely because no case is
pending, since SO 602 (2) would enable the State to open or
continue the rowdy-sheet against a person figured as an accused in
five years subsequent to the last case in which he is involved.
Further, merely because a provision empowers an authority to open
or continue a rowdy-sheet, that by itself does not justify opening or
continuation of a rowdy-sheet. The facts and circumstances in each
individual case are to be examined by the competent authority
either for opening or continuing the rowdy-sheet against an
individual.
BSB, J
8. In the present case, after trial, since the Sessions Court found
the petitioner guilty of offence under Section 376 IPC, convicted him
apart from convicting him for the offence under Sections 417 and
420 IPC as well. Mere suspension of sentence cannot be construed
to mean that there is no ground for opening or continuing a rowdy-
sheet which depends on facts other than in suspension of sentence.
Apart from the Sessions Case, admittedly, there is calendar case in
C.C.No.8 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 420, 323 and 506
also pending against the petitioner. Under these circumstances, it
cannot be construed as a clear case of illegality in opening or
continuing the rowdy-sheet. It is for the appropriate authority to
examine the need to continue the rowdy-sheet against the
petitioner. Therefore, there is no merit in the petition to outrightly
quash the rowdy-sheet pending against the petitioner. However, it
is open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority to
close the rowdy-sheet. Upon filing of such representation, on due
consideration of the facts and circumstances based on the report of
the Station House Officer concerned submitted after due enquiry,
the representation shall be disposed of within two months from the
date of submission of such representation.
9. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is
disposed of.
BSB, J
There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
________________
B.S.BHANUMATHI, J
RAR
