Telangana High Court

Guguloth Praveen Kumar vs The State Of Telangana on 2 February, 2024

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

               WRIT PETITION No.34199 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 police of

Raghunadhapalem Police Station, Khanapuram Haveli Police

Station and Konijerla Police Station of Khammam Rural District

had registered various crimes against him for various offences,

namely (i) C.C.No.800 of 2017 on the file of III Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Khammam, for the offences under

Sections 341 and 323 IPC, which was settled before Lok Adalat;

(ii) C.C.No.311 of 2017 on the file of III Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Khammam, for the offences under

Sections 294B, 336 and 451 IPC, which was compromised;

iii)C.C.No.152 of 2017 on the file of III Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Khammam, for the offences under

Sections 354D and 506 IPC, which was settled before Lok Adalat;

and iv) C.C.No.597 of 2017 on the file of III Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Khammam, for the offences under

Sections 143, 452, 324, 294B IPC, which ended in acquittal. It is

further case of the petitioner as against the aforesaid order of

acquittal passed by the trial Court, no appeal was preferred by the

Government and thus the said order of acquittal attained finality.

Therefore, 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 by the respondent No.3

stating that the petitioner has scant respect towards law and was

involved in various criminal cases registered on the file of

Raghunadhapalem Police Station, Khanapuram Haveli Police

Station and Konijerla Police Station of Khammam Rural District

i.e, 1) Cr.No.159/2017 for the offences under Sections 341,

294(b), 323, 506 IPC of Raghunadhapalem Police Station (ended in

compromise), 2) Cr.No.117/2017 for the offences under Sections

451, 336, 294 (b), 427, 506 IPC of Khanapuram Haveli Police

Station (ended in compromise), 3) Cr.No.44/2017 for the offences

under Sections 354(D) and 506 IPC of Konijerla Police Station,

(ended in compromise) and 4) Cr.No.637/2017 for the offences

under Sections 143, 452, 324, 294(b) r/w 149 IPC of Khanapuram

Haveli Police Station (ended in acquittal). It is further stated that

to curb and curtail the unlawful activities of the petitioner in the

vicinity of Khammam Rural District and more particularly to

safeguard the interest of residents of Raghunadhapalem Police

Station, where the petitioner is residing, after obtaining

permission from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Khammam

Rural vide C.No.222/Gen/ACPKMM RURAL/2017 dated

08/08/2017, a rowdy sheet was opened against the petitioner as

per the Police Standing Orders on the rolls of Raghunadhapalem

Police Station, Khammam District and the same is being

continued and renewed from time to time and stands extended

upto 31.12.2023.

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 be

opened against an individual in a casual and mechanical manner

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)

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

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.