Telangana High Court

Shaik Mohd Abdullah, vs The State Of Telangana on 8 February, 2024

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


              WRIT PETITION No.10448 of 2017

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action on

the part of the respondents in maintaining rowdy sheet against

the petitioner, as arbitrary, illegal and against the police

Standing Order No.601 and Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

Court and consequently to direct the respondents not to harass

the petitioner in any manner.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the police of

S.R.Nagar Police Station registered a crime against him, vide

Crime No.332 of 2014, for the offence punishable under Section

307 read with 34 IPC and the same ultimately ended in

acquittal by the Court of II Additional Metropolitan and Sessions

Judge, Hyderabad, vide its judgment dated 24.09.2015 in

S.C.No.541 of 2014 (PRC No.30 of 2014). 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

offence, 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

CVBR,J wp_10448_2017

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 respondent

No.3 stating that there was involvement of the petitioner in

Crime No.332 of 2014 registered for the offence punishable

under Section 307 of IPC on the file of Sanjeevareddy Nagar

Police Station, and subsequently the said crime ended in

acquittal. It is also stated that since surveillance is required

over the movements of the petitioner, after obtaining permission

from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Panjagutta Division,

Hyderabad, vide proceedings No.12/Rs-PER/ACP-PG/2014

dated 28.08.2014, rowdy sheet was opened against the

petitioner on 28.08.2014, in order to prevent him from involving

in anti-social activities and to curb his illegal activities.

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

CVBR,J wp_10448_2017

others 1 and Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar 2, in which,

the Hon'ble 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 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.

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)

CVBR,J wp_10448_2017

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.

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

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

CVBR,J wp_10448_2017

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.

CVBR,J wp_10448_2017

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

CVBR,J wp_10448_2017

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 case

registered against him.