Telangana High Court

Fahad Bin Khaled Al Amoodi vs The State Of Telangana on 13 October, 2023

Bench: C.V. Bhaskar Reddy

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

                   WRIT PETITION No.16211 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 and not to harass him in any manner.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the police of Rein Bazar Police

Station, Hyderabad, had registered three crimes against him for various

offences, namely (i) Crime No.164 of 2013 for the offences punishable

under Sections 324, 506(2) read with Section 34 IPC, which ultimately

ended in acquittal by the Court of VIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate

vide C.C.No472 of 2014 dated 07.12.2015 (ii) Crime No.118 of 2014 for

the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC which ended in

compromise before the Lok Adalat, vide Lok Adalat Case No.1001 of 2015

dated 14.07.2015; (iii) Crime No.51 of 2015 for the offences punishable

under Sections 307, 324, 509 of IPC read with 34 IPC which also ended

in acquittal by the Court of V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Hyderabad, vide S.C.No.63 of 2016 dated 11.10.2022. It is the further

case of the petitioner that no crimes are pending against him in any

police station as on date. 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

the petitioner is of unlawful character and continuously indulging in the

commission of lawless acts involving breach of public peace and

tranquility. It is further stated that there was involvement of the

petitioner in (i) Crime No.164 of 2013 registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 324, 506(2) IPC and the same ended in

acquittal by the Court of VIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,

Nampally, vide C.C.No.472 of 2014 dated 07.12.2015; (ii) Crime No.118

of 2014 registered for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC

and the same ended in compromise before the Lok Adalat on 15.07.2015;

(iii) Crime No.51 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 307, 324, 509 of IPC read with 34 IPC which also ended in

acquittal by the Court of V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Hyderabad, vide S.C.No.63 of 2016 dated 11.10.2022; and (iv) Crime

No.12 of 2016 registered for the offence punishable under Section 107

Cr.P.C wherein he has been bound over on 18.01.2015. It is also stated

that as per the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner of Police,

Mirchowk Division, Hyderabad, rowdy sheet has been opened against the

petitioner on the file of Rein Bazar Police Station, Hyderabad, vide

C.No.564/1W/NC-DVN/2105 dated 16.06.2015. It is further stated that

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

rowdy sheet was opened against him to watch his movements from time

to time in the public interest as per Standing Order No.601 of A.P. Police

Manual. Reference has been made to the Circular No.2172/C13/

SCRB/CID/TS/22 dated 22.07.2022 issued by the Director General of

Police, Hyderabad, which prescribes the procedure for opening the rowdy

sheets against the habitual offenders.

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.

AIR 1963 SC 1295

AIR 1984 SC 1334

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

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.

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)

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 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

Courts are consistently directing the police to maintain the rowdy sheet

as per the Standing Orders of A.P. Police Manual, this Court is of the

opinion that the action of the respondents police in maintaining the