Telangana High Court

Sri. Bachala Srinivas vs The State Of Telangana on 14 February, 2024

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

                     WRIT PETITION No.32902 of 2022
ORDER:

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

is filed by the petitioner, seeking the following relief:

"...to issue a Writ or order or direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in opening the Rowdy sheet against the Petitioner on the basis of (i) Crime No. 572 of 2018, dt. 23- 09-2018 on the file of Police Station Chandanagar, Cyberabad, U/s. 143, 147, 148, 324, 504, 506, R/w. 19 IPC (ii) Crime No. 1043 of 2020, dt. 25-12- 2020, U/s. 447, 323, 506 IPC on the file of KPHB Colony Police Station and

(iii) Crime no. 1114 of 2021, Dt. 15-09-2021 U/s. 290, 323, 504, 506 IPC on the file of Police Station Madhapur (Guttala), Cyberabad as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Fundamental rights guaranteed Under Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also violative of the PSO. No. 601 of Police Manual, consequently set-aside the rowdy sheet opened against the Petitioner on the basis of above cases and pass such other order or orders for which this Hon'ble court may deem think fit and proper in the interest of justice..."

2. The petitioner claims to be President of "SC Balaheena Vargala

Sankshema Sangam". It is the case of the petitioner that for the welfare

of society, he used to actively participate in society programmes, due to

which some political inimical persons lodged false complaints against

him viz., (i) Crime No.572/2018, dated 23.09.2018 for the offences

under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 504, 506 r/w 149 IPC on the file of

Chandanagar Police Station, Cyberabad, (ii) Crime No.354/2019 for the

offences under Sections 324 r/w 34 IPC on the file of Miyapur Police

Station, Cyberabad (iii) Crime No.1043/2020, dated 25.12.2020, for the

offences under Sections 447, 323 and 506 IPC on the file of KPHB

Colony Police Station and (iv) Crime No.1114/2021, dated 15.09.2021

for the offences under Sections 290, 323, 504, 506 IPC on the file of

Madhapur (Guttala) Police Station. In all the above said cases, he was

granted bail and charge sheets were also filed before the Courts

concerned. However, the respondent No.4 has opened rowdy sheet

against him even though no offence has been committed disturbing the

public peace.

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

that the petitioner is continuously indulging in the commission of

lawless acts involving breach of public peace and tranquility. It is

further stated that petitioner is involved in the following Criminal cases

i.e, i) Crime No.572 of 2018 Dated: 23.09.2018 registered for the

offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 504, 506 R/w 149 of IPC

on the file of Police Station Chandanagar, Cyberabad. After completion

of investigation, charge sheet was filed on the file of XII Addl.

Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally Ranga Reddy District and the

case is pending for trial. ii) Crime No.354 of 2019 dated 22.04.2019

registered for the offences under Sections 324 r/w 34 of IPC on the file

of Miyapur Police Station. After completion of investigation, charge

sheet was filed on the file of XII AddI. Metropolitan Magistrate at

Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District vide C.C.No.2713/2019 and the case

is pending for trial. iii) Crime No.1043 of 2020 dated 25.12.2020

registered for the offences under Sections 447, 323, 506 of IPC on the

file of KPHB Colony Police Station. After completion of investigation,

charge sheet has been filed on the file of XII Addl. Metropolitan

Magistrate at Kukatpally Ranga Reddy District vide C.C.No.2158/2021

and the case is pending for trial. iv) Crime No.1114 of 2021 dated

15.09.2021 registered for the offences under Sections 290, 323, 504,

506 of IPC on the file of Madhapur (Guttala) Police Station, Cyberabad.

After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed on the file

of the Hon'ble XII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally, Ranga

Reddy District vide C.C.No.5292/2021 and the case is pending for trial.

It is further stated that in view of involvement of the petitioner in

aforesaid criminal cases, it has become incumbent on the part of police

to open a rowdy sheet to keep watch on his activities and to curtail

unlawful activities. As per the proceedings of the Assistant

Commissioner of Police, Madhapur Division, Cyberabad, vide No.

01/ACP-Mdpur/Cyb/2021 dated 09.11.2021, the rowdy sheet has been

opened against the Petitioner on the file of Madhapur Police Station,

Cyberabad Commissionerate and the same was transferred to Miyapur

Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, on the point of jurisdiction

vide proceedings No.1638/OW/ACP- Mdpur/Cyb/2021 dated

21.08.2022 and the same is continued up to date.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo dated

08.02.2024 and submitted that 1) C.C.No.7905 of 2022 (old C.C.No.152

of 2019) arising out of Crime No.372 of 2018, in which the Petitioner

was arrayed as Accused No.7, ended in acquitted vide judgment dated

07.08.2023 passed by the IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad at Kukatpally, 2) C.C.No.2713 of 2019 arising out of Crime

No.354 of 2019 was settled before Lok Adalath on 08-12-2021,

3)C.C.No.2159 of 2021 arising out of Crime No.1043 of 2020 was also

settled at Lok Adalath on 26-09-2023 and 4) Crime No.1114 of 2021 in

which the petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.2, there is no involvement

of the Petitioner, and no case status found in the above crime. It is

further submitted that 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. Learned counsel further

submitted that except a solitary case, there are no cases pending

against the petitioner and therefore, prayed to close the rowdy sheet

opened against the petitioner. In support of his submissions, 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

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. 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

AIR 1963 SC 1295

AIR 1984 SC 1334

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

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

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. The learned counsel 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.

5. 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.

1987(2) ALT 904

1997(6) ALD 583

1998(3) ALT 55 (DB)

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"'

6. 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."

7. 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."

8. In the present case, except the solitary case which is stated to be

pending for 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.

9. 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