Telangana High Court

Deenawale Umesh Singh 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.9209 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 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 sheets opened

against them and not to harass them in any manner.

2. The case of the petitioners is that the police of Kulsumpura Police

Station had registered a case in FIR.No.136 of 2014 against them for the

offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC wherein charge

sheet has been filed vide S.C.No.74 of 2015 on the file of Metropolitan

Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and the same ended in acquittal vide

judgment dated 07.09.2015. It is the further case of the petitioners that

another case in FIR.No.118 of 2014 was registered against petitioner

No.3 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC read with

Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, which also ended in acquittal

vide S.C.No.74 of 2015 dated 24.09.2019 and thus no crimes are

pending against them in any police station as on date. However, basing

on the alleged offences, the respondents opened rowdy sheets 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.2 stating that

there was involvement of the petitioners in Crime No.136 of 2014

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120B, 341

read with 34 IPC and Section 25(1A) of Arms Act on the file of

Kulsumpura Police Station, Hyderabad which ended in acquittal on

07.09.2015 vide S.C.No.74 of 2015 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions

Judge, Hyderabad and petitioner No.3 also involved in Crime No.118 of

2014 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406

IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act on the file of

Kulsumpura Police Station, Hyderabad, which ended in acquittal on

24.09.2019 vide C.C.No.280 of 2015 on the file of XIII Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), Hyderbaad. 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, after obtaining

permission from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Goshamahel

Divison, Hyderabad, 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.

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 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.

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 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 cases 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