Telangana High Court

Mohd Mumtaz Qureshi vs The State Of Telangana, on 28 December, 2023

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

                   WRIT PETITION No.32390 of 2023

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking to call for the proceedings of the

suspect sheets opened and maintained on the file of respondent Nos.6

and 7 against the petitioners and to consequently quash the same, as

being illegal, arbitrary and improper, unilateral, unconstitutional and

violative of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.

2. The case of the petitioners is that they were falsely implicated in a

criminal case registered by respondent No.5 vide Crime No.145 of 2018

for the offence punishable under Section 384 read with 34 IPC which was

subsequently taken cognizance by the Court of Chief Metropolitan

Magistraet at Hyderabad vide C.C.No.7651 of 2022 and the same ended

in compromise before the Lok Adalat. Therefore, no crimes are pending

against them in any police station as on date. However, basing on the

alleged offence, respondent Nos.6 and 7 opened suspect sheets against

petitioner Nos.1 and 2 respectively. The main grievance of the petitioners

is that even though there are no criminal cases pending against them,

the respondents with a mala fide intention are continuing the suspect

sheets and due to surveillance, they are 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 a

case in Crime No.121 of 2022 for the offence punishable under Section

384 of IPC dated 05.09.2022 was registered on the file of respondent

No.5 herein against the petitioners and others, wherein charge sheet has

been filed vide C.C.No.7651 of 2022 on the file of Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate at Nampally and the same was compromised before the Lok

Adalat on 10.06.2023; since petitioner No.1 does not reside within the

jurisdiction of respondent No.7, suspect sheet has been opened against

the petitioner on the file of a different police station; since respondent

No.2, who is accused No.7 in the above crime, is young and active

unsocial element indulged in criminal activities, to keep surveillance over

his activities and movements, the Station House Officer, Kamatipura

Police Station, Hyderabad, respondent No.5 herein, addressed a letter

No.516/OW/KM/2022 dated 18.11.022 requesting the Assistant

Commissioner of Police, Charminar Division, Hyderabad City, to accord

necessary permission to open suspect sheet against him and the latter,

in turn, accorded permission vide proceedings No.2616/ACP/CMNR/22

dated 19.11.2022; accordingly suspect sheet in Form No.88 was opened

against petitioner No.2 as per Order No.742(1), 736(a)(b) of A.P. Police

Manual on 19.11.2022; Subsequently, after obtaining necessary

permission, the said suspect sheet has been transferred to respondent

No.7 police station on the point of jurisdiction and the same is presently

being maintained on the file of respondent No.7; in view of State

Legislative Assembly elections there is need to keep surveillance over the

petitioners herein and as such it is necessary to continue the suspect

sheets against the petitioners; and except continuing the suspect sheets,

the petitioners have not been called to the police station much less they

were harassed by the respondents police.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as on date,

there are no cases pending against the petitioners and therefore, prayed

to close the suspect sheets opened against the petitioners. 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 petitioners 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.

AIR 1963 SC 1295

AIR 1984 SC 1334

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

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

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 petitioners 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.

7. It is apt to refer to the relevant Standing Orders of A.P. Police

Manual.

1987(2) ALT 904

1997(6) ALD 583

1998(3) ALT 55 (DB)

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

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 petitioners as on date to maintain the suspect sheets

or to keep surveillance on the activities of the petitioners in any manner.

However, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners are

habitual offenders and there is every possibility of threat to the public at

large. Further, the respondents have not given any specific instance of

the petitioners involvement in the commission of offence subsequent to

the closure/acquittal of the criminal case registered against them.

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

Courts are consistently directing the police to maintain the rowdy