Telangana High Court

Mohammed Arbaaz Khan vs The State Of Telangana on 26 December, 2023

          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

                   WRIT PETITION No.30388 of 2023

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 all 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.

2. The case of the petitioner is that when he was a juvenile, the police

of Marredpally Police Station had registered FIR.No.4 of 2017 against

him for the offence punishable under Section 380 of IPC, wherein charge

sheet has been filed and the same was taken cognizance by the Court of

V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Principal Magistrate of

Juvenile Justice Board at Hyderabad vide C.C.No.133 of 2017 which

ultimately ended in acquittal vide order dated 01.08.2018. It is the

further case of the petitioner that as against the aforesaid order of

acquittal, no appeal has been preferred by the Government and thus the

said order of acquittal has attained finality. Therefore, no crimes are

pending against him in any police station as on date. However, basing

on the alleged offence, 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 by respondent No.4 stating that

no rowdy sheet has been opened against the petitioner much less the

same is being continued; the then Assistant Commissioner of Police,

Gopalapuram Division, Secunderabad, issued orders in proceedings

No.204/OW/ACP-GP/2017 dated 05.06.2017, to open suspect sheet

against the petitioner as per A.P.Police Manual Order No.600(1)(B), in

view of his involvement in Crime No.4 of 2017 registered for the offence

punishable under Section 380 IPC on the file of Marredpally Police

Station and Crime No.226 of 2016 for the offence punishable under

Section 380 of IPC on the file of Tukaramgate Police Station and

accordingly suspect sheet has been opened against the petitioner on the

file of Tukaramgate Police Station; the Deputy Commissioner of Police,

North Zone, Secunderabad, vide Memo No.HN/A3/5562/2017 dated

30.11.2017, issued orders transferring the said Suspect Sheet from

Takaramgate Police Station to Kharkhana Police Station and as such

respondent No.5 is conducting periodical reviews; Crime No.4 of 2017

registered against the petitioner ended in acquittal vide C.C.No.133 of

2017 dated 01.08.2018 on the file of V Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate-cum-Principal Magistrate of Juvenile Justice Board at

Hyderabad and Crime No.226 of 2016 registered for the offence

punishable under Section 380 of IPC on the file of Tukaramgate Police

Station ended in compromise before Lok Adalat on 12.11.2022; in view of

general elections to the State Assembly, on 18.10.2013 the petitioner was

produced by respondent No.5 before the Revenue Divisional Officer,

Lakdikapool, Hyderabad and the learned Special Executive Magistrate,

Hyderabad, vide M.C.No.B/1255/2023 dated 18.10.2023 bound over

him for keeping good behavior for a period of one year on executing a

bond of Rs.50,000/-; in view of past conduct of the petitioner, it is

necessary to continue the suspect sheet against the petitioner; and

except continuing the suspect sheet, the petitioner has not been called to

the police station much less his liberty has been infringed in any

manner.

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, 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

AIR 1963 SC 1295

AIR 1984 SC 1334

2000(1) ALD (Crl.) 117 (AP)

2004(1) ALD (Crl.) 387 (AP)

1987(2) ALT 904

1997(6) ALD 583

1998(3) ALT 55 (DB)

2020(2) ALD (Crl.) 1048 (AP)

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.

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.

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 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 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, as per the counter-affidavit, there are no cases

pending against the petitioner as on date to maintain the rowdy

sheet/suspect 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 closure/acquittal of the criminal cases

registered against him.

11. In view of the above and inasmuch as in catena of cases, the