Telangana High Court

Abdul Omer , Omer, vs The Govt Of Andhra Pradesh on 20 September, 2023

Bench: C.V. Bhaskar Reddy

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

                   WRIT PETITION No.36572 of 2013

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 he was falsely implicated in

various offences by respondent No.2, namely (i) C.C.No.29 of 2022 on the

file of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at LB Nagar for the

offences punishable under Sections 341, 120B, 447 and 506 IPC which

ended in acquittal; (ii) C.C.No.267 of 2009 on the file of XIV Metropolitan

Magistrate, Cyberabad, at LB Nagar, for the offences punishable under

Sections 447 and 506 IPC which ended in acquittal; and (iii) S.C.No.101

of 2010 on the file of V Additional Assistant Sessions Judge (FTC), RR

District, for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 342, 324 read

with 34 IPC which also 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

there was involvement of the petitioner in (i) Crime No.41 of 2003 for the

offences punishable under Sections 427, 323, 390 IPC on the file of

Pahadishareef Police Station, Cyberabad, which ultimately ended in

compromise before the Lok Adalat on 01.04.2003; (ii) Crime No.21 of

2024 for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC on the file of

Kamatipura Police Station, Hyderabad and the same ended in acquittal;

(iii) Crime No.61 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 341,

120-B, 447 and 506 of IPC on the file of Pahadishareef Police Station,

Cyberabad, which also ended in acquittal on 21.02.2005 vide C.C.No.29

of 2009; (iv) Crime No.284 of 2024 for the offences punishable under

Sections 427, 506 and 290 IPC on the file of Pahadishareef Police

Station, Cyberabad and the same ended in acquittal on 25.01.2005 vide

C.C.No.399 of 2005; and (v) Crime No.351 of 2010 for the offences

punishable under Section 110 (e) of Cr.P.C. of Pahadishareef Police

Station, Cyberabad and the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Saroornagar,

bound over the petitioner on 20.09.2010. It is further stated that to curb

and curtail the unlawful activities of the petitioner, a rowdy sheet was

opened against him, after obtaining permission from the higher officials

on 23.08.2004, to watch his movements from time to time in the public

interest.

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

AIR 1963 SC 1295

AIR 1984 SC 1334

2000(1) ALD (Crl.) 117 (AP)

2004(1) ALD (Crl.) 387 (AP)

1987(2) ALT 904

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.

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:

1997(6) ALD 583

1998(3) ALT 55 (DB)

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

"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