Telangana High Court

Mohammed Anwar vs State Of Tela.Ngana on 16 February, 2024

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

                    WRIT PETITION No.19045 of 2017

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of

respondents in opening and continuing the rowdy sheet against the

petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the

Constitution of India and to consequently direct respondents to close the

rowdy sheet opened against him at Langar House Police Station,

Hyderabad.

2. The petitioner claims to be a permanent resident of Hyderabad. It

is his case that in the year 2014 the Station House Officer, P.S Langar

House has registered a case in Crime No.235 of 2013 against him for the

offences punishable under Sections 353, 307 r/w 34 of IPC and 25(1) of

the Arms Act. It is his further case that Langer House Police opened a

rowdy sheet against him and subsequently in the year 2014, it has been

transferred to Tappachabutra Police Station. It is the further case of the

petitioner that initially Crime No.235 of 2013 was registered against one

Arif and Zahid and thereafter, based on the confessional statement of

accused Nos.1 and 2, he was arrayed as accused No.6 and rowdy sheet

No.89 of 2014, dated 18.03.2014 is opened against him and investigation

into the said crime is not completed and neither final report nor charge

sheet is filed before the concerned Court. The main grievance of the

petitioner is that even though there are no other criminal cases pending

against him, respondent No.4 with a mala fide intention is 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 Inspector of Police, Langer

House Police Station, Hyderabad, respondent No.4 herein stating inter

alia that the petitioner is of unlawful character and he is continuously

indulging in the commission of lawless acts involving breach of public

peace and tranquility. It is further stated that the on 13.07.2013, the

police apprehended Mohd. Arif and Mohd. Jahed Khan in Crime No.235

of 2013 and on interrogation, Mohd. Arif confessed that he sold one

pistol with rounds to the petitioner and during the course of

investigation, the petitioner was arrested on 13.07.2013 and remanded

to judicial custody. It is further stated that in view of involvement of the

petitioner in the above criminal case, in order to curb and curtail the

unlawful activities of the petitioner, as per the proceedings issued by the

Assistant Commissioner of Police, Asifnagar Division, the rowdy sheet

has been opened against the petitioner on 18.03.2014 on the file of

Langer House Police Station, Hyderabad. Since the petitioner shifted his

residence from the limits of Langer House Police Station, rowdy sheet has

been transferred to Tappachabutra Police Station as per the proceedings

of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, West Zone, Hyderabad, and since

then Tappachabutra Police Station is maintaining the rowdy sheet

against the petitioner as per Standing Order No.601 of A.P.Police

Manual.

4. 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.

5. 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

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 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:

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, 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.

11. 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