Telangana High Court

Mohd. Kashif 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.501 of 2023

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of

respondents in not closing the rowdy sheets opened against them, even

after the petitioners were acquitted in the criminal case 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 sheets

opened against them and not to harass them in any manner.

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

Station had registered Crime No.78 of 2013 against them for the offences

punishable under Sections 147, 148, 427, 324, 307 IPC read with 149

IPC and Section 21(1B) of Arms Act and charge sheet has been filed on

the file of Special Judge for Trial of Cases Under Essential Commodities

Act-cum-III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, vide

S.C.No.521 of 2014 and the same ended in acquittal. It is the further

case of the petitioners no crimes are pending against them in any police

station as on date. However, basing on the alleged offences, the

respondents opened rowdy sheet against them. The main grievance of

the petitioners is that even though there are no criminal cases pending

against them, the respondents with a mala fide intention are continuing

the rowdy sheets and due to surveillance, they are facing much

inconvenience and hardship to lead a respectable and dignified life in the

society.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed respondent No.4 stating that the

petitioners are 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

petitioners in Crime No.78 of 2013 registered on the file of Rein Bazar

Police Station, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Sections

147, 148, 427, 324, 307 IPC read with 149 IPC and Section 21(1B) of

Arms Act wherein charge sheet has been filed vide S.C.No.521 of 2014 on

the file of Special Judge for Trial of Cases Under Essential Commodities

Act-cum-III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, and the

same ended in acquittal. It is also stated that basing as per the

proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mirchowk Division,

Hyderabad, rowdy sheets have been opened against the petitioners on

the file of Rein Bazar Police Station, Hyderabad Commissionerate vide

No.435/OW/ACP/MC-DVN/2013 dated 24.05.2013 and No.436/OW/

ACP-MC-DVN/2013 dated 24.05.2013 and the same are being

maintained against the petitioners. It is further stated that as on date,

there are no cases pending against the petitioners and to curb and

curtail the unlawful activities of the petitioners, rowdy sheets were

opened against them to watch their 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 petitioners has submitted that as on date,

there are no cases pending against the petitioners and therefore, prayed

to close the rowdy sheets opened against the petitioners. 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 Bihar2, 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 petitioners 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.

AIR 1963 SC 1295

AIR 1984 SC 1334

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

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

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 petitioners 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.

1987(2) ALT 904

1997(6) ALD 583

1998(3) ALT 55 (DB)

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

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 petitioners as on date to maintain the rowdy sheets

or to keep surveillance on the activities of the petitioners in any manner.

However, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners are

habitual offenders and there is every possibility of threat to the public at

large. Further, the respondents have not given any specific instance of

the petitioners involvement in the commission of offence subsequent to

the closure/acquittal of the criminal case registered against them.

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