Telangana High Court

Mohd. Amer vs The State Of Telangana on 20 September, 2023

Bench: C.V. Bhaskar Reddy

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

                    WRIT PETITION No.3327 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 he was falsely implicated in

two cases viz., (i) Crime No.268 of 2014 on the file of Santosh Nagar

Police Station, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Sections

498-A read with 34, 342, 324 and 506 of IPC wherein charge sheet has

been filed before the Court of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Hyderabad and the same has been taken cognizance vide

C.C.No.540 of 2015 which ultimately ended in acquittal vide judgment

dated 31.10.2017; and (ii) Crime No.37 of 2016 on the file of Bhavani

Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under

Sections 307, 324 read with 34 IPC wherein charge sheet has been filed

and the same has been taken cognizance vide S.C.No.298 of 2017 on the

file of Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of Communal

Offences-cum-VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad,

which ended in acquittal. It is the further case of the petitioner that no

crimes are pending against him in any police station as on date.

However, basing on the alleged offences, the respondents opened rowdy

sheet against him. 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 respondent No.3 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.268 of 2014 for the offences punishable under

Sections 324, 342, 506, 498-A read with 34 IPC on the file of

Santoshnagar Police Station, Hyderabad, which ended in compromise

before the Lok Adalat on 31.10.2017 vide C.C.No.540 of 2015 (ii) Crime

No.78 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Section 506 of IPC on

the file of Bhavani Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad, which also ended in

compromise before the Lok Adalat on 06.12.2014 (iii) Crime No.37 of

2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 324 read with 34

of IPC on the file of Bhavani Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad, which

ended in acquittal on 22.10.2019 vide S.C.No.298 of 2017 (iv) Crime

No.66 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Section 110(E) Cr.P.C. on

the file of Santosh Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad, wherein the

petitioner has been bound over for his good behavior vide

M.C.No.B/233/2020 from 12.03.2020 to 11.03.2021 and (v) E-Petty case

dated 19.06.2021. It is also stated that basing on the instructions

issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Santosh Nagar Division,

Hyderabad, rowdy sheet has been opened against the petitioner on the

file of Bhavani Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad, vide No.483/1W/ACP-

STN/2016 dated 15.03.2016 and thereafter it has been transferred to

Santosh Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad, vide No. /OW/ACP-STN/2016

dated 10.07.2018 and the same is being maintained against the

petitioner. It is further stated that to curb and curtail the unlawful

activities of the petitioner, a 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. It is also stated that there is no case registered against the

petitioner after closure of the aforesaid criminal cases.

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.

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

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)

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, there are no

criminal 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