Telangana High Court

Kommineni Chaitanya Krishna 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.21785 of 2023

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of

respondents in opening and continuing the history sheet against the

petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and infringing the fundamental rights

guaranteed under Constitution of India and to consequently direct

respondent No.4 to close the history sheet opened against him.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he has been falsely implicated in

Crime No.333 of 2018 registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 20(b)(ii)(A) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,

1985 (for short "the NDPS Act'), Section 3 read with 24 of TOPA Act,

Section 76 of CP Act and Section 290 of IPC, on the file of Rajiv Gandhi

International Airport Police Station, wherein charge sheet has been filed

and the same has been taken cognizance vide C.C.No125 of 2019 on the

file of XII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendra Nagar, which is

pending for trial. It is his further case that basing on the alleged solitary

offence, respondent No.4 opened a history sheet against him vide

proceedings C.No.62/SHBAD/2021 dated 25.11.2021. The main

grievance of the petitioner is that even though there are no other criminal

cases pending against him, except the aforesaid single case which is

pending for trial, respondent No.4 with a mala fide intention is

continuing the history 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,

Narsingi Police Station, respondent No.4 herein, stating inter alia that as

per the available records, the petitioner was involved in Cr.No.333 of

2018 registered for the offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of

NDPS Act on the file of Rajiv Gandhi International Airport Police Station,

Cyberabad and the case is pending trial vide C.C.No.125 of 2019 before

the Court of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar. It is further

stated that in view of involvement of the petitioner in the above criminal

case, a suspect sheet has been opened against him on the file of Rajiv

Gandhi International Airport Police Station, Cyberabad, as per the

proceedings of respondent No.3 i.e., Assistant Commissioner of Police,

Rajendranagar Division, HC Shamshabad Division, vide

C.No.62/SHBAD/2021 dated 25.11.2021. Subsequently, on the point of

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

for further surveillance on the petitioner as per Memo of Commissioner of

Police, Cyberabad, vide C.No.405/CCRB-HS/CYB/2022 dated

30.04.2022 and the same is being maintained against the petitioner. It

is also stated that in view of past record, it is necessary to maintain the

suspect sheet to keep close watch on the movements of the petitioner to

curb law and order problem. It is also stated that except opening and

maintaining the suspect sheet against the petitioner, the respondents

police did not harass, threaten or interfere with the life and liberty of the

petitioner much less any coercive action has been taken in any manner.

It is further stated that in view of pendency of C.C.No.125 of 2019,

retaining the suspect sheet is essential to watch the activities of the

petitioner and as such prayed this Hon'ble Court to dismiss the writ

petition.

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 history 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 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

maintenance of public order or affecting peace and tranquility in 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)

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 for trial, there are no cases pending against the

petitioner as on date to maintain the history 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