Telangana High Court

Md. Faisal Ali Khan 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.25506 of 2023

ORDER:

This writ petition has been filed seeking to declare the action of

respondent Nos.2 to 4 in harassing and threatening the petitioner by

calling to police station everyday and visiting the house of the petitioner

everyday under the guise of case registered against him in Cr.No.25 of

825 of 2019 on the file of the 3rd respondent and even after filing of the

charge sheet and facing trial in S.C.No.599 of201 on the file of the

Special Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking the Cases relating to Attrocities

against Women-cum-XIII Metropolitan Sessions Judge, at LB Nagar,

Ranga Reddy District, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, without

following due procedure of law, violative of fundaments rights and

principles of natural justice and contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State Bihar and to consequently direct

the respondents not to harass the petitioner by calling to the police

station and visiting the house of the petitioner without following due

procedure.

2. The case of the petitioner is that that police of Mailardevpally Police

Station registered a case, vide FIR.No.825 of 2019 dated 21.11.2019,

against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 417,

420, 376(2)(n) of IPC and subsequently the police conducted

investigation and also filed charge sheet vide S.C.No.599 of 2021 on the

file of the Special Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking the Cases relating to

Attrocities against Women-cum-XIII Metropolitan Sessions Judge, at LB

Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. The grievance of the petitioner is that even

though investigation has been completed, charge sheet has been filed

and the said case is pending for trial, the respondent police authorities,

at the instance of the complainant's family, have been harassing,

threatening and trying to detain him in the police station under the guise

of the said case without any reasons, thereby he is facing much

inconvenience and hardship.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Station House Officer &

Inspector of Police, Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad, respondent

No.4 herein, inter aila stating that the petitioner is a rowdy sheeter and

in this connection, the Station House Officer, Mailardevpally Police

Station, Cyberabad, made a requisition to the Assistant Commissioner of

Police, Rajendranagar Division, vide No.52/Mdyply/Cyb/2020 dated

04.02.2020, stating that the petitioner involved in Crime No.825 of 2019

on the file of Mailardevpally Police Station, Cyberabad, and the case is

pending vide S.C.No.599 of 2021 on the file of Special Sessions Judge for

Fast Tracking the Cases relating to Attrocities against Women-cum-XIII

Metropolitan Sessions Judge, at LB Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, who in

turn accorded permission and rowdy sheet has been opened on

06.06.2020. Subsequently on the point of jurisdiction the rowdy sheet

has been transferred to Golconda police Station, Hyderabad, for further

surveillance over the activities of the petitioner as per the proceeding of

the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad vide C.No.763/CCRB-

D9/CYB/2020 dated 22.06.2020. Later on, again on the point of the

jurisdiction, the rowdy sheet has been transferred to respondent No.4

and thereafter to the Station House Officer, Humayunagar Police Station

on 06.09.2023 for further surveillance and the same is being maintained

against the petitioner. It is also stated that not to create untoward

incident in view of Ganesh Festival and incoming general elections, the

Hon'ble Special Executive Magistrate, Hyderabad, bound over the

petitioner for good behavior vide M.C.No.B/827/2023 dated 06.09.2023.

Reference has also been made to the Circular issued by the Director

General of Police, Hyderabad, vide C.No.2172/C13/SCRB/CID/TS/22

dated 22.07.2022 which prescribes the procedure for opening and

continuing the rowdy sheets against the habitual offenders. It is further

stated that except maintaining rowdy sheet against the petitioner,

respondent Nos.2 to 4 did not harass, threaten, detain or interfere with

the life and liberty of the petitioner, much less any coercive action has

been taken against the petitioner

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

solitary case which is pending trial, 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 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,

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)

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.

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.

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

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 for trial, 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 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