Telangana High Court
Johan Singh vs The Govt. Of Ap Rep. By Its Principal ... on 13 December, 2023
Author: G.Radha Rani
Bench: G.Radha Rani
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
WRIT PETITION No.24711 of 2013
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to issue an
order in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the
respondents in abstaining from closure of rowdy sheet in the name of
the petitioner inspite of acquittal in criminal cases in C.C.No.34 of
1999 dated 17.01.2002 and C.C.No.59 of 2001 dated 12.04.2002 on
the file of the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and also
dismissal of 107 Cr.P.C. proceedings before the Executive Magistrate
and to declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, against law and in
violation of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
2. Heard Sri K.Suresh Shiv Sagar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home
appearing for the respondents.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner was the Chairman of Sikh Gurudwara Chowni situated at
Dr.GRR, J
wp_24711_2013
Uppuguda, Hyderabad. He was also doing business at Uppuguda.
The Gurudwara was surrounded by land admeasuring Ac.8-03gts.
There were lot of encroachments which were prevented by the
petitioner. As the Chairman of the religious institution, he was
discharging his duty peacefully. Since longtime, the litigation of Sikh
Gurudwara Chowni was prosecuted by the petitioner in several Courts
including the Endowment Tribunal. The petitioner was falsely
implicated in two cases i.e. C.C.No.34 of 1999 under Section 324 and
506 read with Section 34 of IPC and C.C.No.59 of 2001 under
Section 147, 353 read with 149 of IPC and Section 7(i) and Sections 3
and 4 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1994 on the
file of the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. In the above
cases, the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.2 and accused No.1
respectively.
4. In both the cases in C.C.No.59 of 2001 and C.C.No.34 of 1999,
the petitioner was acquitted vide judgments dated 12.04.2002 and
17.01.2003 respectively. The Police without any evidence registered
a crime under Section 107 Cr.P.C., which was referred to the Revenue
Dr.GRR, J
wp_24711_2013
Divisional Officer - cum - Executive Magistrate, Hyderabad.
Ultimately, the same was also dismissed for non-prosecution. The
respondent No.3 opened rowdy sheet against the petitioner in the year
2002 and was harassing the petitioner. Without any reason, the
petitioner was called to the police station regularly. In view of the
Police Standing Orders, and the judgments of various Courts, when
the petitioner was acquitted in criminal cases, maintaining of rowdy
sheet against the petitioner was in violation of Articles 19 and 21 of
the Constitution of India and as such prayed to close the rowdy sheet
against the petitioner.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments
of this Court in W.P.No.31462 of 2015 dated 30.09.2018 as well as in
W.P.No.10437 of 2021 dated 18.10.2022.
6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home on
instructions submitted that total eleven cases were registered against
the petitioner, in which the petitioner was acquitted in seven cases and
one case was referred as Lack of Evidence and in two cases, the
petitioner was facing trial.
Dr.GRR, J
wp_24711_2013
7. He further submitted that even after filing the writ petition, the
petitioner was involved in two cases i.e. Crime No.241 of 2014 for the
offences under Sections 406, 420 and 506 of IPC of Chatrinaka Police
Station and the case was pending for trial vide C.C.No.603 of 2015
and Crime No.11 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 341, 506
read with Section 34 of IPC and the said case was also pending for
trial vide C.C.No.2918 of 2021.
8. On a perusal of the record and the citations relied by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, though the petitioner was involved in
several cases, all the cases registered against the petitioner resulted
either in acquittal or referred as 'Lack of Evidence' and only two
cases are currently pending against him, one a private complaint and
the other filed by the Endowments Department.
9. This Court in W.P.No.31462 of 2015 after referring to a number
of cases passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well the common High
Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana held that,
Dr.GRR, J
wp_24711_2013
In Majid Babu v. Government of Andhra Pradesh 1, it was
held by a single Judge of this Court that two instances of involvement
in criminal cases would not make a person a 'habitual offender' and
that at least more than two instances should be present before a person
can be described as a 'habitual offender'. In Kamma Bapuji v.
Station House Officer, Brahmasamudram2also, this Court held that
figuring as an accused in two crimes would not be sufficient to
categorize a person as a 'habitual offender' and the said principle was
affirmed in Shaik Mahboob v. The Commissioner of Police 3 ,
Gudivada Sai Baba v. State of AP, Home Department 4 ,
P.Sathiyya Naidu v. Superintendent of Police, East Godavari
District 5 , Beerjepally Venkatesh Babu v. State of Andhra
Pradesh6.
10. In W.P.No.10437 of 2021 also, a single Judge of this Court
while referring to the judgment in Umesh Singhaniya v.
1987 (2) ALT 904
1997 (6) ALD 583
1990 (1) APLJ 363
2002 (3) ALT 391
2011 (2) ALT 61
2014 (3) ALT 264
Dr.GRR, J
wp_24711_2013
Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad 7 held that opening of rowdy
sheet is not permissible unless there are more than two pending cases
causing breach of peace, disturbance to public order and security.
11. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home also
conceded that as only two cases were pending against the petitioner,
agreed to give a direction to the Police to close the rowdy sheet
opened against the petitioner with a liberty to open a fresh rowdy
sheet, if any offences are committed by him in future.
12. Considering the said submissions made by the learned counsel
for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for
Home, it is considered fit to allow the Writ Petition directing the
respondents to close the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner
vide Proceeding No.899/IW/PS-CNK/2000 dated 29.12.2000 giving a
liberty to open fresh rowdy sheet if any offences are committed by the
petitioner in future.
13. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed with the above
directions. No order as to costs.
2013 (3) ALT 146
Dr.GRR, J
wp_24711_2013
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this petition,
if any, shall stand closed.
____________________
Dr. G.RADHA RANI, J
Date: 13th December, 2023
Nsk.
