Telangana High Court
Syed Akbar vs The State Of Telangana on 9 February, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.21297 of 2019
ORDER:
The case of the petitioner is that the police of Rajendra Nagar Police
Station had registered a crime against him vide Crime No.568 of 2010
and the same ended in acquittal vide judgment dated 02.12.2011 in
Sessions Case No.113 of 2011. It is the further case of the petitioner
that no crimes are pending against him in any police station as on date.
However, pursuant to registration of the aforesaid crime, basing on the
alleged offences, the police of Rajendranagar Police Station 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 on that
pretext, they are frequently calling him to police station and making him
to sit hours together, thereby interfering with his life and liberty.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.5 herein stating
inter alia that the petitioner was involved in three criminal cases viz.,
(i) Crime No.568 of 2010 registered on the file of Rajendranagar Police
Station, respondent No.6 herein, for the offence punishable under
Section 302 read with 34 IPC (ii) Crime No.268 of 2018 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 324, 504 read with 34 IPC on the file
of respondent No.5 and the same is pending trial vide C.C.No.2621 of
2019 before the Court of XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Hyderabad; and (iii) Crime No.1807 of 2018 dated 29.11.2018 registered
for the offence punishable under Section 107 of Cr.P.C on the file of
respondent No.6 and the Executive Magistrate, Hyderabad, bound over
the petitioner for good behavior. It is further stated that in view of
involvement of the petitioner in Crime No.568 of 2010, in order to curb
and curtail the unlawful activities of the petitioner, as per the
proceedings dated 01.01.2011 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of
Police, Rajendernagar, rowdy sheet has been opened against the
petitioner on the file of respondent No.6 herein, to watch his movements
from time to time in the public interest as per Standing Order No.601 of
A.P.Police Manual. It is stated that subsequently on 25.01.2019
respondent No.5 received the rowdy sheet of the petitioner as per the
proceedings of the Deputy Commission of Police, West Zone, Hyderabad,
vide No.HW-5/Crime/402/2019 dated 22.01.2019. It is further stated
that except maintaining rowdy sheet, respondent No.5 did not interfere
with the life and liberty of the petitioner nor harassed him by calling to
police station as alleged by the petitioner. It is further stated that in view
of pendency of C.C.No.2621 of 2019, retaining the rowdy sheet is
essential to watch the activities of the petitioner and as such prayed this
Hon'ble Court to dismiss the writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that except a
solitary case which is pending trial, 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.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further 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,
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)
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.
5. 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.
6. 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"'
7. 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."
8. 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."
9. In the present case, as per the counter-affidavit, except the solitary
case which is pending trial, 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 subsequently.
10. It is settled legal position that involvement of a person in a solitary
criminal case is not sufficient to classify such a person as a habitual
offender under Clause (A) of Standing Order 601 of A.P.Police Manual.
11. In view of the above settled legal position 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 has no hesitation in holding that the opening of the
rowdy sheet in the name of the petitioner and continuance of the same
thereafter is in violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution
of India.
12. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the
respondents police to close the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner
and not to call the petitioner to police station without there being any
crime registered against him. It is needless to observe that if the
petitioner involves in any crime in future and if there is any sufficient
material to establish that his movements are required to be prevented,
the respondents police are at liberty to take action against him strictly in
accordance with the Standing Orders of A.P. Police Manual.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________
C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J
09.02.2024
JSU
