Telangana High Court
Raja Singh vs The State Of Telangana, on 5 December, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.2373 of 2021
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action
of respondents in not closing the rowdy sheet opened
against him, even after the petitioner was acquitted in both
the criminal cases as illegal, arbitrary and violative of
Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and to
consequently direct the respondents to close the rowdy
sheet opened against him and not to harass him in any
manner.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the police of
Mangalhat Police Station, had registered two crimes
against him for various offences, namely (i) S.C.No.74 of
2011 on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions
Judge for the Trial of Communal Offences-cum-VII
Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, for the
offences punishable under Section 302 and 324 read with
34 of I.P.C. and (ii) S.C.No.477 of 2016 on the file of the
Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of
CVBR, J
Wp_2373_2021
Communal Offences Cases-cum-VII Additional
Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, for the offences
punishable under Sections 307 and 195-A read with 34 of
I.P.C. and both the cases were ended in acquittal vide
judgments, dated 30.11.2017 and 25.09.2019, respectively.
Therefore, no criminal cases are pending against him in
any police station as on date. However, basing on the
alleged offences, the respondents opened rowdy sheet
against him. The main grievance of the petitioner is that
even though there are no criminal cases pending against
him, the respondents with a mala fide intention are
continuing the rowdy sheet and due to surveillance, he is
facing much inconvenience and hardship to lead a
respectable and dignified life in the society.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed respondent No.4
stating that there was involvement of the petitioner in
Crime No.113 of 2009 registered for the offences under
Sections 302 and 324 read with 34 of I.P.C. and Crime
No.181 of 2015 registered for the offences under Sections
307 and 195-A read with 34 of I.P.C., wherein charge
CVBR, J
Wp_2373_2021
sheets have been filed and after conducting full fledged
trial in S.C.Nos.74 of 2011 and 477 of 2016 they were
ended in acquittal. It is also stated that basing on the
instructions issued by the Assistant Commissioner of
Police, Goshamahal Division, rowdy sheet has been opened
against the petitioner on the file of Mangalhat Police
Station vide No.796/ACPGM/2009, dated 17.07.2009,
later the rowdy sheet has been transferred to Golconda
Police station, on the point of jurisdiction, and the same is
being maintained against the petitioner. It is further stated
that as on date, there are no cases pending against the
petitioner and to curb and curtail the unlawful activities of
the petitioner, a rowdy sheet was opened against him to
watch his movements from time to time in the public
interest as per Standing Order No.601 of A.P. Police
Manual. Reference has been made to the Circular
No.2172/C13/ SCRB/CID/TS/22 dated 22.07.2022 issued
by the Director General of Police, Hyderabad, which
prescribes the procedure for opening the rowdy sheets
against the habitual offenders. It is also stated that there is
CVBR, J
Wp_2373_2021
no case registered against the petitioner after closure of the
aforesaid criminal cases.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
as on date, there are no cases pending against the
petitioner and therefore, prayed to close the rowdy sheet
opened against the petitioner. In support of his
submission, he has relied upon the judgment in Kharak
Singh v. State of U.P. and others 1 and Vijay Narain
Singh v. State of Bihar 2, in which, the Apex Court held
that opening of rowdy sheet and continuing the same
without any valid reason would not characterize a person
that he is habitually involving in commission of offences.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the
judgments in Sunkara Satyanarayana v. State of Andhra
Pradesh 3; B. Satyanarayana Reddy v. State of Andhra
Pradesh 4 ; Majid Babu v. Government of Andhra
Pradesh 5 ; Kamma Bapuji v. Station House Officer,
AIR 1963 SC 1295
AIR 1984 SC 1334
2000(1) ALD (Crl.) 117 (AP)
2004(1) ALD (Crl.) 387 (AP)
1987(2) ALT 904
CVBR, J
Wp_2373_2021
Brahmasamudram 6. He has further relied on the judgment
in Puttagunta Pasi v. Commissioner of Police,
Vijayawada 7, in which, the Division Bench has specifically
observed 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.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed much
reliance on the judgment in Yerramsetti Venugopal Rao
v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others 8, in which, the
learned Single Judge of High Court of Andhra Pradesh
while referring to the Standing Orders of A.P. Police Manual
and the principles laid down in the catena of judgments
held that history sheet of a rowdy can be continued (i) if the
activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
or affecting peace and tranquility in the area; ii) the victims
are not coming forward to give complaint against him on
account of threat from him.
1997(6) ALD 583
1998(3) ALT 55 (DB)
2020(2) ALD (Crl.) 1048 (AP)
CVBR, J
Wp_2373_2021
7. It is apt to refer to the relevant Standing Orders of
A.P. Police Manual.
Maintenance of rowdy sheets is governed by Standing
Order No.601 of 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.
CVBR, J
Wp_2373_2021
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"'
8. The period of retention of history sheets of
suspects/rowdies is governed by Standing Order No.602 of
A.P. Police Manual and the same 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.
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
CVBR, J
Wp_2373_2021
not coming forward to give complaint against him on
account of threat from him."
9. Standing Order No.742 of A.P. Police Manual deals
with the classification of rowdies and opening of rowdy
sheets and the same 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
CVBR, J
Wp_2373_2021
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."
10. In the present case, there are no cases pending
against the petitioner as on date to maintain the rowdy
sheet or to keep surveillance on the activities of the
petitioner in any manner. However, it is not the case of the
respondents that the petitioner is a habitual offender and
there is every possibility of threat to the public at large.
Further, the respondents have not given any specific
instance of the petitioner's involvement in the commission
of offence subsequent to the acquittal of the criminal cases
registered against him.
11. In view of the above and inasmuch as in catena of
cases, the Courts are consistently directing the police to
maintain the rowdy sheet as per the Standing Orders of
A.P. Police Manual, this Court is of the opinion that the
action of the respondents police in maintaining the rowdy
CVBR, J
Wp_2373_2021
sheet against the petitioner even though no case is pending
against him cannot be said to be proper.
12. Therefore, the respondents-police are directed to
close the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner. It is
needless to observe that if the petitioner involves in any
crime in future and if there is any sufficient material to
establish that his movements are required to be prevented,
the respondents-police are at liberty to take action against
him strictly in accordance with the Standing Orders of A.P.
Police Manual.
13. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.
14. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall
stand closed.
________________________
C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J
05.12.2023
gkv
