Telangana High Court
Mansoor Shah Khan vs The State Of Telangana on 1 June, 2021
Bench: K.Lakshman
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
WRIT PETITION No.22980 OF 2020
Between:
Mansoor Shah Khan and others. .. Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Telangana rep.by its
Principal Secretary Home Department,
Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 01.06.2021
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see the Yes/No
Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment may
be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
wish to see the fair copy of the Yes/No
Judgment?
JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
2
KL,J
W.P.No.22980 of 2020
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
+ W.P. No.22980 of 2020
% Dated 01.06.2021
#Mansoor Shah Khan and others. ... Petitioners
Vs.
$ The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary
Home Department,
Secretariat, Hyderabad
and others. ..Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioners: Ms.Valdimeer Khatoon
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Learned Government Pleader for
Home, appearing for the respondents.
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1. AIR 1963 SC 1295
2. AIR 1984 SC 1334
3. AIR 1966 SC 1766
4. 2000(1) ALD (Crl.) 117 (AP)
5. 2004(1) ALD (Crl.) 387 (AP)
6. 1987(2) ALT 904
7. 1997 (6) ALD 583
8. 1998(3) ALT 55 (DB)
9.. 1999(3) ALD 60
10. 2020(2) ALD (Crl.) 1048 (AP)
11. 2013 Crl.LJ 2746
3
KL,J
W.P.No.22980 of 2020
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No.22980 of 2020
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the
respondents in opening Rowdy Sheet Nos.1284, 1285, 1286 and
1287/RS/ACP-BH/2019 dated 11.12.2019 and continuing the same
against the petitioners as illegal and for a consequential direction to
the respondents to close the rowdy sheets against the petitioners and
not to call them to the police station.
2. There are four petitioners in the present writ petition. According
to them, they were involved in two cases i.e. Crime No.331 of 2015
pending on the file of Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad for the
offences under Sections 447, 427 and 506 read with 34 IPC. The
police, after completion of investigation, filed a charge sheet against
the petitioners herein for the aforesaid offences and the same was
taken on file vide C.C.No.650 of 2017. The said proceedings in
C.C.No.650 of 2017 ended in acquittal vide judgment dated
22.02.2018 passed by the learned II Special Magistrate, Hyderabad.
No appeal is filed challenging the said judgment and therefore, the
said judgment attained finality. The other case is Crime No.926 of
2019 pending on the file of Banjara Hills Police Station for the
offences under Sections 307, 448, 147, 148, 506 read with 149 of IPC.
The police, after completion of investigation, have filed a charge sheet
vide PRC.No.307 of 2020. The same is pending.
3. Ms. Vladimeer Khatoon, learned counsel for the petitioners,
referring to the said proceedings, would submit that proceedings in
C.C.No.650 of 2017 (arising out of Crime No.331 of 2015) ended in
KL,J
W.P.No.22980 of 2020
acquittal by the learned Special Magistrate Court, Hyderabad. The
said judgment attained finality. The petitioners herein are also
accused in P.R.C.No.307 of 2020 (arising out of Crime No.926 of
2019) for the offences under Sections 307, 448, 147, 148, 506 read
with 149 of IPC, which is pending. As on today, there is only one case
pending against the petitioners herein. However, without considering
the said fact and also the procedure laid down under the A.P.Police
Manual, the respondents have issued the above said rowdy sheets
against the petitioners herein and they are continuing the same which
is arbitrary, illegal and also contrary to the principles laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of decisions. Learned
counsel would further submit that under the guise of opening and
continuation of rowdy sheets, the respondents/police are calling the
petitioners to the police station and harassing them by making them
to wait in the police station for hours together. With the said
submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners sought a direction to
the respondents to close the above said rowdy sheets opened against
the petitioners on 11.12.2019. She has relied on the principles laid
down by this Court in the judgments in WP.No.12845 of 2014 dated
27.09.2019 and W.P.No.15050 of 2020 dated 03.11.2020.
4. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Home
referring to the contents of the counter filed by respondent No.5 i.e
Station House Officer, Banjara Hills Police Station, would submit that
the petitioners were involved in Crime No.331 of 2015 and Crime
No.926 of 2019 for the aforesaid offences. However, Crime No.331 of
2015 (arising out of C.C.No.650 of 2017) ended in acquittal. In Crime
No.926 of 2019, the police after completion of investigation have filed
KL,J
W.P.No.22980 of 2020
charge sheet against the petitioners herein vide PRC.No.307 of 2020.
The same is pending.
5. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that the
petitioners herein indulged in criminal trespass with mischief causing
damage and threatening and attempt to murder case, thereby created
terror in the minds of people and havoc in the area. To curb and
curtail the unlawful activities in the vicinity of Banjara Hills Police
Station, Hyderabad, after obtaining permission from the Assistant
Commissioner of Police, Banjara Hills Division, Hyderabad, respective
rowdy sheets have been opened vide Rowdy Sheet Nos.1284, 1285,
1286 and 1287/RS/ACP-BH/2019 dated 11.12.20219 and the same
are being continued and renewed from time to time. Referring to
Standing Order Nos.601 and 602(2) of the A.P.Police Manual, learned
Government Pleader would submit that there is no illegality or
irregularity in opening the rowdy sheets against the petitioners herein
by respondent No.5. He would further submit that respondent No.5
never called the petitioners to police station during odd hours as
alleged in the writ affidavit. The police were patrolling in the areas,
including the area where the petitioners reside, since three murders
were taken place in the said area. The petitioners are not innocents
and they were involved in the above said two crimes. Unless and until
a close watch is being maintained to curtail their unlawful activities in
the vicinity of Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad City, there is
every chance that they may repeat the offences. Except continuation
of rowdy sheets as per the Police Manual, respondent No.5 never
harassed the petitioners as alleged in the writ affidavit. With the said
submissions, learned Government Pleader sought to dismiss the
present writ petition.
KL,J
W.P.No.22980 of 2020
6. In view of the said rival submissions, it is opt to refer to the
relevant clauses of the A.P. Police Manual. Maintenance of rowdy
sheets is governed by Standing Order 601 of the A.P.Police Manual,
Part-I, Volume II which reads as under:-
"601. The following persons may be classified as rowdies and
Rowdy Sheets (Form 80) may be opened for them under the orders
of the SP/DCP and ACP/SDPO.
A. 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.
B. Persons bound over under Sections 106, 107, 108(1) (i)
and 110(e) and (g) of Cr.P.C.
C. 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 Towns Nuisances Act.
D. Persons who habitually tease women and girls and pass
indecent remarks.
F. 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.
G. Persons who incite and instigate communal/caste or
political riots.
H. 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.
I. Persons who are convicted for offences under the
Representatives of the Peoples' Act for rigging and carrying
away ballot paper, Boxes and other
polling material"'
Likewise, the period of retention of history sheets of
suspects/rowdies is governed by Standing Order 602, which reads as
follows:-
"602-1. History Sheets of suspects shall be maintained from
the date of registration up to the end of December, after
which the orders of a gazetted officer as to their
discontinuance or retention for a further period shall be
obtained.
KL,J
W.P.No.22980 of 2020
2. 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
tranquillity in the area or the victims are not coming forward
to give complaint against him on account of threat from him."
Standing Order 742 of A.P. Police Standing Orders deals with
the situation as to classification of rowdies and opening of rowdy
sheets, which is extracted below:-
"742. Rowdies:- (1) The following persons may be
classified as rowdies and Rowdy Sheets (Form 88) may be
opened for them under the order of the Superintendent of
Police or Sub-divisional Officer:
(a) persons who habitually commit, attempt to commit or
abet the commission of, offences involving a breach of the
peace;
(b) persons bound over under Sections 106, 107, 108(c)
and 110(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act
No.2 of 1974);
(c) persons who have been convicted more than once in
two consecutive years under Section 75 of the Madras City
Police Act or under Section 3, clause 12, of the Towns
Nuisances Act;
(d) persons who habitually tease women and girls by
passing indecent remarks or otherwise; and
(e) in the case of rowdies residing in an area under one
Police Station but are found to be frequently visiting the
area under one or more other Police Stations their rowdy
sheets can be maintained at all such Police Stations;
(G.O. Ms. No. 656, Home (Police-D) Dept. Dt. 8-4-1971)
(2) Instructions in Order 735 regarding discontinuance of
History Sheets shall also apply to Rowdy Sheets."
7. According to respondent No.5, the above said proceedings in
C.C.No.650 of 2017 ended in acquittal and no appeal is filed against
the said judgment and thus, the said judgment attained finality. At
present, the proceedings in PRC.No.307 of 2020 alone are pending
against all the four petitioners herein. As per Standing Order 601 of
KL,J
W.P.No.22980 of 2020
the A.P. Police Manual, rowdy sheet can be maintained against
persons who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the
commission of offences involving a breach of peace, disturbance to
public order and security.
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court had an occasion to deal with the
opening of history sheets, continuation of the same and also right to
privacy in Kharak Singh v. The State Of U. P. & Others1. In the
said case, rowdy sheet was opened against the petitioner therein and
the same was continued. Under the guise of surveillance, the police
started visiting the house of the petitioner therein against whom
rowdy sheet was opened and pending during night hours and they
used to torture him. The Hon'ble Apex Court declared the domiciliary
visits at night hours as unconstitutional.
9. In the case of Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar2, a three
Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court had an occasion to deal with
the expression 'habitually' and held that the expression 'habitually'
would mean 'repeatedly' or 'persistently' implying a thread of
continuity, stringing together similar repetitive acts, and a single act
or omission would not characterize an act as 'habitual'. The Hon'ble
Apex Court was of the opinion that to qualify as a 'habit', a person
must have grown accustomed to leading a life of crime, whereby it
would be a force of habit, inherent or latent, in an individual with a
criminal instinct, with a criminal disposition of mind, that makes him
dangerous to society in general.
AIR 1963 SC 1295
AIR 1984 SC 1334
KL,J
W.P.No.22980 of 2020
10. In another case of Dhanji Ram Sharma v. Superintendent of
Police, North District, Delhi Police3, a three Judge Bench of the
Hon'ble Apex Court held that the condition precedent for opening of a
history sheet is that such person should be reasonably believed to be
habitually addicted to crime or to be an aider or abettor of crime. In
order to justify the opening of a history sheet, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court opined that the police officer must have a reasonable belief
based on reasonable grounds.
11. In Sunkara Satyanarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh4 a
learned Single Judge was concerned with the maintenance of history
sheets/rowdy sheets for considerably long periods of time and held
that the same would not only violate the right of privacy but also
other fundamental rights of such persons under Articles 14 and 19 of
the Constitution of India. Orders for opening or retention of history
sheets/rowdy sheets should be passed under administrative
instructions and guidelines and if such orders are challenged, the
competent authority has to place the reasons before the Court
justifying the opening/retention of such history sheets/rowdy sheets.
It would be better for the police officer concerned to record his own
reasons for opening/retention of history sheets/rowdy sheets.
12. In B. Satyanarayana Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh5, a
Division Bench held that the expressions 'habitually commit', 'attempt
to commit' and 'abet the commission' of offences indicate the
requirement that atleast 'two or more cases' have bee been registered
against the person concerned to characterize him as a person who
habitually commits, attempts to or abets the commission of offences.
AIR 1966 SC 1766
2000(1) ALD (Crl.) 117 (AP)
2004(1) ALD (Crl.) 387 (AP)
KL,J
W.P.No.22980 of 2020
It was further held that involvement of a person in a solitary case
would not be enough to classify such person as 'habitually'
committing offences. With the said finding, the Division Bench held
that solitary instance in which the appellant therein was alleged to be
involved in could not constitute the basis to classify him as a 'rowdy.'
13. In another case in Majid Babu v. Government of A.P.6, it was
held that two instances of involvement in criminal cases would not
make a person a 'habitual offender' and that atleast more than two
instances should be present before a person can be described as a
habitual offender.
14. In Kamma Bapuji v. Station House Officer,
Brahmasamudram7, wherein the persons in whose names rowdy
sheets were opened were involved in two cases but they were
acquitted in both, it was sought to be contended on behalf of the
police authorities that the rowdy sheets were opened during the
pendency of the cases and that acquittal therein would be of no
consequence thereafter. While dealing with the said facts of the said
case, the learned Judge rejected the said contention and held that
rowdy sheets could not be opened in a casual and mechanical manner
and a person could not be dubbed a 'habitual offender' merely
because he was involved in two criminal cases.
15. In Puttagunta Pasi v. Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada8,
a Division Bench confirmed the said principle holding that a rowdy
sheet could not be opened against an individual in a casual and
mechanical manner and due care and caution should be taken by the
police before characterizing a person as a rowdy. The Division Bench
1987(2) ALT 904
1997 (6) ALD 583
1998(3) ALT 55 (DB)
KL,J
W.P.No.22980 of 2020
expressed agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge
in Kamma Bapuji's case (7 supra) that figuring as an accused in two
crimes would not be sufficient to categorise a person as a 'habitual
offender'.
16. In Mohammed Quadeer v. Commissioner of Police,
Hyderabad9, it was held that A.P.Police Standing Orders were not
statutory in nature and were only a compilation of government orders
issued from time to time and they therefore did not invest the police
officers with any powers of arrest, detention, investigation of crimes
etc. not specifically conferred under the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, or other enactments. As regards retention of a rowdy sheet, it
was held that opening of a rowdy sheet against a citizen was
undoubtedly fraught with serious consequences and the right to
reputation under Article 21 of the Constitution could not be deprived
except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The law
which authorizes the police to open rowdy sheets and exercise
surveillance would have to be very strictly construed.
17. In Yerramsetti Venugopal Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh
and others10, a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh at Amaravathi referring to the above said provisions of the
A.P.Police Manual and the principles laid down in the above said
judgments held that history sheet of a rowdy can be continued (i) if
his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or
affecting peace and tranquility in the area; and (ii) the victims are not
coming forward to give complaint against him on account of threat
from him.
1999(3) ALD 60
2020(2) ALD (Crl.) 1048 (AP)
KL,J
W.P.No.22980 of 2020
18. In W.P.No.19194 of 2012 dated 24.08.2015, by referring to the
above said provisions of the A.P. Police Manual and also the principles
laid down in the aforesaid judgments, it was held that the
requirement of involvement in atleast more than two cases for
inferring that he was a habitual offender was not established. The
opening of the rowdy sheet in the name of the petitioner therein was
therefore tainted in law in its very inception. Therefore, continuation
of the said rowdy sheet by the police authorities ignoring the law laid
down by this Court as well as the Supreme Court cannot be
sustained. Accordingly, with the said finding, the respondents therein
were directed to close the rowdy sheet being maintained in the name
of the petitioner therein.
19. In another judgment in W.P.No.18364 of 2020 dated
03.12.2020, a learned Judge of this Court, after referring to the
principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Narain
Singh's case (2 supra) and also referring to the Police Standing
Orders supra, it was held that it is impermissible to the police to open
a rowdy sheet if police are of the view that the petitioner is habitually
committing offences/abetting commission of offence involving breach
of peace, disturbance to the public order and security. In the said
case, the petitioner has involved in five cases and he has been facing
trial in the said cases Referring to the facts of the said case, it was
held that it cannot be said that the action of the police in opening
rowdy sheet amounts to abuse or misuse of power and authority, and
cannot be said as one made in illegal exercise of power and without
application of mind.
KL,J
W.P.No.22980 of 2020
20. In W.P.No.12845 of 2014 dated 27.09.2019, wherein the
petitioner has involved in only one case for the offence under Section
302 read with Section 34 IPC and by relying on the principles laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in catenae of
decisions, it was held that opening of rowdy sheet and continuation of
the same thereafter was in violation of the life and liberty as
guaranteed to the petitioner therein under the provisions of the
Constitution of India as well as contrary to the law laid down by this
Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court.
21. Learned Government Pleader for Home, referring to the
principle laid down by the Madras High Court in the case of G.Raman
Alias Ramachandran v. The Superintendent Of Police, Karur
District and others11 wherein it was held that in public interest, the
Police has got a right to disseminate information, concerning law and
order, and crime. Display or publication of a photograph of a History
Sheeted Rowdy, may be contended to infringe upon a person's right,
in so far as it affects his identity, reputation in the minds of others,
but at the same time, public interest would prevail over private
interest, would submit that respondent No.5 has rightly opened the
rowdy sheets against the petitioners and is continuing the same in
the interest of public. According to him, there is no illegality.
22. In view of the law laid down by this Court and the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the above said judgments, coming to the facts on hand, as
discussed supra, admittedly, the petitioners herein were involved in
the above said two cases. C.C.No.650 of 2017 (arising out of Crime
No.331 of 2015) for offences under Sections 447, 427, 506 read with
34 IPC ended in acquittal. No appeal was filed against the said
2013 Crl.LJ 2746
KL,J
W.P.No.22980 of 2020
judgment. Thus, the said judgment attained finality. Another case i.e
PRC.No.307 of 2020 (arising out of Crime No.926 of 2019) for
offences under Sections 307, 448, 147, 148, 506 read with 149 IPC is
pending against the petitioners herein. Thus, as on today, only one
case is pending against the petitioners herein. According to
respondent No.5, to curb and curtail the unlawful activities of the
petitioners herein in the vicinity of Banjara Hills Police Station,
Hyderabad, after obtaining permission from the Assistant
Commissioner of Police, Banjara Hills Division, Hyderabad, the above
said rowdy sheets were opened against the petitioners herein and the
same are being continued in view of public interest.
23. As stated above, as per Standing Order 601 of the A.P. Police
Manual, for opening and maintenance of rowdy sheet, a person
against whom the same was issued should habitually commit,
attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences involving a
breach of peace, disturbance to public order and security. Further,
as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Narain Singh's case (2
supra), the expression 'habitually' would mean 'repeatedly' or
'persistently' implying a thread of continuity, stringing together
similar repetitive acts, and a single act or omission would not
characterize an act as 'habitual'. The Hon'ble Apex Court was of the
opinion that to qualify as a 'habit', a person must have grown
accustomed to leading a life of crime, whereby it would be a force of
habit, inherent or latent, in an individual with a criminal instinct,
with a criminal disposition of mind, that makes him dangerous to
society in general. In Majid Babu's case (6 supra), by referring to
Standing Order No.742, it was held that two instances of involvement
in criminal cases would not make a person a 'habitual offender' and
KL,J
W.P.No.22980 of 2020
that atleast more than two instances should be present before a
person can be described as a habitual offender. Rowdy sheet could
not be opened against an individual in a casual and mechanical
manner and due care and caution should be taken by the police
before characterizing a person as a rowdy. Figuring as an accused in
two cases would not be sufficient to characterize a person as a
habitual offender.
24. In view of the above said law laid down and in view of the above
said discussion, the petitioners herein were involved in the above said
two crimes. One crime has ended in acquittal. As on today, only one
case i.e PRC.No.307 of 2020 is pending against the petitioners herein.
Thus, the requirement of involvement of in atleast more than two
cases for inferring that the petitioners were habitual offenders was not
established. Thus opening of rowdy sheets in the name of the
petitioners is therefore contrary to the procedure laid down under A.P.
Police Manual and procedure laid down in the Judgments supra.
25. As held in Yerramsetti Venugopal Rao's case (supra), rowdy
sheet can be continued (i) if his activities are prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order or affecting peace and tranquility in the
area; and (ii) the victims are not coming forward to give complaint
against him on account of threat from him. In the counter filed by
respondent No.5, lacks the said grounds. Therefore, continuation of
the said rowdy sheets by the police authorities ignoring the law laid
down by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
judgments cited supra cannot be sustained.
25. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are
directed to close the rowdy sheets being maintained in the names of
KL,J
W.P.No.22980 of 2020
the petitioners on the file of Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad.
There shall be no order as to costs.
26. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
__________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
Date: 01-06-2021.
Note: L.R.Copy to be marked.
JSU
