Mohd. Anwaruddin Abbu vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 214 Tel

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

                   WRIT PETITION No.31737 OF 2022

ORDER:

The present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner under Article

- 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a Writ of

Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in continuing the

suspect sheet against the petitioner as illegal and unconstitutional and

for a consequential direction to the respondents to close the suspect

sheet opened against the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. V. Venkata Mayur, learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home

appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. The contentions of the petitioner are as under:

(i) At present, he is working as Driver to eke out his

livelihood.

(ii) While he was working in Gold Shop, the Police

had registered various crimes against him. The

details of the same are as follows:

KL,J W.P.No.31737 of 2022

Sl. Crime/C.C./S.C. Name of P.S./Court Offences Stage/ No Number Result C.C.No.773/2010 Chief Metropolitan

01. (Cr.No.14/10 of 382 IPC Acquittal Magistrate, Hyd.

Chatrinaka P.S., Hyd.

S.C.No.364/2011 V Addl. Metropolitan -do-

02. (Cr.No.38/10 of Sessions Judge, Hyd. 382 & 354 IPC Saidabad P.S., Hyd.

      S.C.No.455/2012          The    Spl.Judge    for
                                                            382, 354 &             -do-
03.   (Cr.No.69/10        of   Economic offences-cum-
                                                             120B IPC
      Malakpet P.S., Hyd.      VIII AMSJ, Hyd.
      C.C.No.348/2010
                                                                                   -do-
      (Cr.Nos.109         &         XII ACMM, Hyd.           382 IPC
04.   201/10 of Nampally
      P.S., Hyd.
      S.C.No.586/2011
05.   (Cr.No.193/10       of          V AMSJ, Hyd.        382 & 354 IPC            -do-
      Saidabad P.S., Hyd.
      C.C.No.192/2011
06.   (Cr.No.91/10        of        VII ACMM, Hyd                                  -do-
                                                             382 IPC
      Madannapet       P.S.,
      Hyd.
      C.C.No.344/2011               VII ACMM, Hyd.
07.   (Cr.No.253/10       of                                 382 IPC               -do-
      Saidabad P.S., Hyd.
      C.C.No.555/2011
08.   (Cr.No.109/10       of                                 382 IPC               -do-
                                    VIII ACMM, Hyd.
      Moghalpura       P.S.,
      Hyd.
      C.C.No.106/2011
09.   (Cr.No.145/10       of        VII ACMM, Hyd.           382 IPC               -do-
      Santoshnagar     P.S.,
      Hyd.
      C.C.No.640/2010
      (Cr.No.142/10       of        VIII ACMM, Hyd.          382 IPC               -do-
10.
      Moghalpura       P.S.,
      Hyd.
      C.C.No.108/2011
11.   (Cr.No.177/10       of        VII ACMM, Hyd.           382 IPC               -do-
      Santoshnagar     P.S.,
      Hyd.
      C.C.No.102/2011
      (Cr.No.178/10       of        VII ACMM, Hyd.           382 IPC               -do-
12.
      Santoshnagar     P.S.,
      Hyd.
      S.C.No.406/2012             The Spl.Judge for       382 354 & 120B
13.   (Cr.No.405/10       of   Economic Offences-VIII           IPC                -do-
      Malakpet P.S., Hyd.            MSJ, Hyd.
      C.C.No.775/2010
14.   (Cr.No.162/10       of           CMM, Hyd.             382 IPC               -do-
      Bahadurpura      P.S.,
      Hyd.

                                                                                   KL,J
                                                                   W.P.No.31737 of 2022

(iii) The petitioner was acquitted in all the aforesaid

fourteen (14) crimes, and no case is pending

against him.

(iv) Further, after 2011, no case is registered against

the petitioner herein.

(v) Despite the petitioner ended in acquittal in all the

aforesaid cases, the respondents are still continuing

the suspect sheet against him.

(vi) In view of the above, continuing of rowdy sheet

against the petitioner is illegal.

(vii) A person should be a habitual offender for the

purpose of opening and maintaining of rowdy

sheet, and the petitioner is not habitual offender.

(viii) Placed reliance on the principle laid down by a

Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh

at Hyderabad in B. Satyanarayana Reddy v.

State of Andhra Pradesh1.

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

KL,J W.P.No.31737 of 2022

With the said submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner sought to

declare the action of the respondents in continuing the suspect sheet

against the petitioner as illegal and for a consequential direction to

close the above said suspect sheet opened against the petitioner.

4. The contentions of respondents as per the counter affidavit

filed by respondent No.3 are as under:

(i) The petitioner herein is young, energetic and unlawful character

locally and continuously indulging in the commission of lawless

acts involving breach of public peace and tranquility and

involved in the aforesaid fourteen (14) crimes.

(ii) In view of the involvement of the petitioner in the aforesaid

fourteen (14) crimes, it has become necessary on the part of

police to open a suspect sheet against him to keep watch on his

activities and to curtail unlawful activities.

(iii) After obtaining permission from the Assistant Commissioner of

Police, Falaknuma Division, Hyderabad vide C.No.528/IW/MC-

DVN/2013, dated 21.07.2013, the suspect sheet has been opened

KL,J W.P.No.31737 of 2022

against the petitioner on the file of Station House Officer,

Moghalpura Police Station, Hyderabad.

iv) Thereafter, on the point of jurisdiction, the suspect sheet has been

transferred pursuant to the proceedings of the Assistant

Commissioner of Police, Falaknuma Division, Hyderabad, vide

C.No.1728(1)/OW/ACP/MC-DVN/2013, dated 20.12.2013.

v) In support of the same, the learned Assistant Government

Pleader for Home has relied on the decision in Mohd. Sadiq

Shareef v. State of Telangana2. He has also relied upon the

decisions in Dhanji Ram Sharma v. Superintendent of

Police, North District, Delhi Police3 and Vijay Narain Singh

v. State of Bihar4.

With the said submissions, the learned Assistant Government Pleader

for Home sought to dismiss the present writ petition.

5. 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

. 2019 (1) ALT 283

. AIR 1966 SC 1766

. AIR 1984 SC 1334

KL,J W.P.No.31737 of 2022

Sheets is governed by Police 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.

E. 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.

            F. Persons     who         incite   and       instigate
               communal/caste or political riots.

                                                                             KL,J
                                                             W.P.No.31737 of 2022

G. 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.

H. 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."

6. 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.

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

KL,J W.P.No.31737 of 2022

or the victims are not coming forward to give complaint against him on account of threat from him."

7. Standing Order 742 of A.P. Police Standing Orders deals

with 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

KL,J W.P.No.31737 of 2022

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."

8. According to the respondents, the petitioner was involved in

various crimes, and the details of which are shown in the aforesaid

tabular form, and in order to curb and curtail the petitioner's unlawful

activities, they are maintaining the suspect sheet against the petitioner

to watch his movements from time to time.

9. As per Standing Order 601 of the A.P. Police Manual, rowdy

sheet can be maintained against persons who habitually commit or

attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences involving a

breach of peace, disturbance to public order and security.

10. Refuting the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner

would submit that all the aforesaid fourteen (14) crimes have ended in

acquittal and that there are no crimes pending against him. Even then,

KL,J W.P.No.31737 of 2022

as per the Police Manual, if a single crime is pending, opening of a

rowdy sheet against any person is illegal.

11. The 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.5. 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 the rowdy sheet was opened and

pending during night hours and they used to torture the petitioner.

The Apex Court declared that the domiciliary visits at night hours are

unconstitutional.

12. In Vijay Narain Singh4, a three Judge Bench of the

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 as an act of 'habitual'. The Apex Court was of the

opinion that to qualify as a 'habit', a person must have grown

. AIR 1963 SC 1295

KL,J W.P.No.31737 of 2022

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 as dangerous to society

in general.

13. In Dhanji Ram Sharma3, a three Judge Bench of the

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 a 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.

14. In Sunkara Satyanarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh6

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

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

KL,J W.P.No.31737 of 2022

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.

15. In B. Satyanarayana Reddy1, a Division Bench of the

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad held, that the

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.'

16. In Majid Babu v. Government of A.P.7, it was held that

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.

. 1987(2) ALT 904

KL,J W.P.No.31737 of 2022

17. In Kamma Bapuji v. Station House Officer,

Brahmasamudram8, wherein the persons in whose name 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 the 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.

18. In Puttagunta Pasi v. Commissioner of Police,

Vijayawada9, 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, due care and caution should be taken

by the police before characterizing a person as a rowdy. The Division

Bench expressed agreement with the view taken by the learned Single

. 1997 (6) ALD 583

. 1998(3) ALT 55 (DB)

KL,J W.P.No.31737 of 2022

Judge in Kamma Bapuji8 that figuring as an accused in two crimes

would not be sufficient to categorize a person as a 'habitual offender'.

19. In Mohammed Quadeer v. Commissioner of Police,

Hyderabad10 it was held that the A.P. Police Standing Orders were

not statutory in nature and were only a compilation of government

orders issued from time to time, and that the Manual 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.

20. In Yerramsetti Venugopal Rao v. State of Andhra

Pradesh11, a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra

. 1999(3) ALD 60

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

KL,J W.P.No.31737 of 2022

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 the 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.

21. In Sadath Ali v. The Commissioner of Police, Twin

Cities, Hyderabad12 by referring to the above said provisions of the

A.P. Police Manual and also the principle laid down in the aforesaid

judgments, a learned Judge of the High Court of Judicature at

Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, held that

the requirement of involvement in at least 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.

. W.P. No.19194 of 2012, decided on 24.08.2015

KL,J W.P.No.31737 of 2022

Accordingly, with the said finding, the respondents therein were

directed to close the rowdy sheet being maintained in the name of the

petitioner therein.

22. In M. Laxman v. State of Telangana13, a learned Judge of

this Court, after referring to the principle laid down by the Apex Court

in Vijay Narain Singh4 and also referring to the Police Standing

Orders supra, it was held that it is permissible 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 was involved in five cases and he has been facing trial in

the said cases. Referring to the said facts, 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 that one

made in illegal exercise of power and without application of mind.

23. In Kadri Ranadheer Kumar v. Principal Secretary,

Home Department, Hyderabad14, wherein the petitioner was

. W.P. No.18364 of 2020, decided on 03.12.2020

. W.P. No.12845 of 2014, decided on 27.09.2019

KL,J W.P.No.31737 of 2022

involved in only one case for the offence under Section 302 read with

Section 34 of the IPC and by relying on the principles laid down by

the Apex Court and this Court in catenae of decisions, a learned Judge

of this Court held that the 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 Apex Court.

24. Following the above said principle, this Court also ordered

for the closure of rowdy sheet in Mansoor Shah Khan v. The State

of Telangana rep.by its Principal Secretary Home Department,

Hyderabad15.

25. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home placed

reliance on the principle laid down by the Madras High Court in

G. Raman Alias Ramachandran v. The Superintendent of Police,

Karur District16. In the said case, it was held that in the public

interest, the Police have got a right to disseminate information,

. W.P. No.22980 of 2020, decided on 01.06.2021

. 2013 Crl.L.J. 2746

KL,J W.P.No.31737 of 2022

concerning law and order, and the crime. Display or publication of a

photograph of a History Sheeted Rowdy may be continued 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. Referring to the same, the learned Assistant

Government Pleader would submit that the respondents have rightly

opened the suspect sheet against the petitioner and is continuing the

same in the interest of public. According to him, there is no illegality.

26. In view of the law, laid down by this Court and the Apex

Court in the above said judgments, coming to the facts of the case on

hand, as discussed supra, fourteen (14) crimes were registered against

the petitioner and out of them, nine (09) cases were acquitted by the

date of opening of suspect sheet, and only five (05) cases were

pending against the petitioner herein and later the same were also

ended in acquittal. The offences alleged in the said five (05) cases are

under Sections - 382 and 354 of IPC. Out of the said five (05) cases,

two (02) cases were ended in acquittal in the year 2015 and another

one in the year 2022.

KL,J W.P.No.31737 of 2022

27. 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 Apex Court in Vijay Narain Singh4, 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 as a 'habitual'. The 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.

28. As held in Yerramsetti Venugopal Rao11, 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. The said grounds are lacking in the

KL,J W.P.No.31737 of 2022

present case. Though in all the aforesaid cases, allegations are serious

in nature, the petitioner was acquitted. Therefore, continuation of the

said 'rowdy sheet' by the police authorities against the petitioners

ignoring the law laid down by this Court as well as the Apex Court in

the judgments cited supra cannot be sustained.

29. For the foregoing discussion, the present Writ Petition is

allowed, and the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner of Police,

Falaknuma Division, Hyderabad vide C.No.528/IW/MC-DVN/2013,

dated 21.07.2013 opening suspect sheet against the petitioner herein

and the consequential proceedings C.No.1728(1)/OW/ACP/MC-

DVN/2013, dated 20.12.2013 are hereby quashed. The respondents

are directed to close the suspect sheet against the petitioner herein.

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ

petition shall stand closed.

_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 18th January, 2023 Mgr