Telangana High Court

Mohd. Mazher Ahmed Ansari, vs State Of Telangana, on 13 October, 2023

Bench: C.V. Bhaskar Reddy

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

                   WRIT PETITION No.12662 of 2023

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of

respondents in not closing the rowdy sheet opened against him 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 he is a businessman and holds

high reputation in the society. During the course of business

transactions with on Mr. Mohd Khaza Moinuddin, disputes arose

between them and thus with a view to harass the petitioner, a false

criminal case was foisted against him which has been registered as

Crime No.111 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 406

and 420 read with Section 34 IPC wherein he was arrested and enlarged

on bail subsequently. Thereafter, in the year 2018, the petitioner was

again falsely implicated in a criminal case vide Crime No.223 of 2018

registered for the offences punishable under Section 420 IPC on the file

of Langer House Police Station wherein till date no charge sheet has been

filed. However, basing on the alleged offences, the respondents opened

rowdy sheet against him. The main grievance of the petitioner is that

even though in both the aforesaid criminal cases, commercial

transactions were involved which are civil in nature and he never

involved in grave offences, 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 the Inspector of Police,

Rajendranagar Police Station, respondent No.5 herein, stating inter alia

that respondent No.5 has not opened or maintained any rowdy sheet

against the petitioner on the file of Rajendranagar Police Station at any

point of time, and it is only the Assistant Commissioner of Police WCO,

Team XII, CCS, DD, Hyderabad, who opened a suspect sheet against the

petitioner vide NO.WCO T-XII/CCS/HYD/OW/2021 dated 17.05.2021

and the same has been transferred to respondent No.5 for surveillance

on the point of jurisdiction. It is further stated that the petitioner was

involved in (i) Crime No.111 of 2020 registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 420, 406 read with 34 IPC on the file of WCO

Police Station, Team XII, CCS, DD, Hyderabad which is pending for trial

under PT vide C.C.No.2290 of 2021 on the file of XII ACMM Court at

Nampally, Hyderabad; and (ii) Crime No.223 of 2018 registered for the

offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC of Langer House Police

Station wherein a final report has been submitted as Civil in Nature. It

is also stated that in view of involvement of the petitioner in the above

crimes, and in order to curb and curtail the unlawful activities of the

petitioner, suspect sheet has been opened by the Assistant

Commissioner of Police WCO, Team XII, CCS, DD, Hyderabad, on

17.05.2021 and the same was transferred to SHO, Rajendranagar on

28.10.2021 for further surveillance on the point of jurisdiction. It is

further stated that respondent No.5 is maintaining the suspect sheet

against the petitioner up-to-date, to watch his movements from time to

time in the larger public interest as per Standing Order No.601 of

A.P.Police Manual. It is also stated that except reviewing and

maintaining the suspect sheet against the petitioner, respondent No.5

did not take any coercive action against the petitioner in any manner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner

was falsely implicated in both the aforesaid criminal cases and he never

involved in grave offences and therefore, prayed to close the rowdy

sheet/suspect 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

AIR 1963 SC 1295

AIR 1984 SC 1334

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 further 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

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

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)

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, except the solitary

case which is pending trial, 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 subsequently.

11. It is settled legal position that involvement of a person in a solitary

criminal case is not sufficient to classify such a person as a habitual

offender under Clause (A) of Standing Order 601 of A.P.Police Manual.

12. In view of the above settled legal position and inasmuch as in