Telangana High Court

Md.Zaki Ahmed vs The State Of Telangana on 21 February, 2024

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

                      WRIT PETITION No.1705 of 2024
ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

"...to issue a Writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents 2 to 5 in opening and maintaining rowdy sheet against petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 14, 19 (1)(c) and 21 of the Constitution of India...

2. The case of the petitioner is that the police ofBanjara Hills Police

Station and Central Crime Station (CCS), Hyderabad, have registered

various crimes against him for various offences viz., (i)C.C.No.167 of

2010 on the file of III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at

Hyderabad, for the offences under Sections 25(1)(b) of Arms Act, which

ended in acquittal on 03.04.2013; (ii)C.C.No.186 of 2008 on the file of

XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad, for the

offences under Sections 498A, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC & Sec.4 & 6 of D.P.

Act, which ended in acquittal on 26.09.2014; iii)C.C.No.354 of 2013 on

the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad, for

the offences under Sections 385, 506 of IPC which ended in acquittal on

06.06.2014; iv) Crime No.541/2005 registered for the offences under

Sections 324, 307 IPC which was later altered to Section 302 r/w 34

IPC. The said case ended in conviction vide S.C.No.227/2006. Aggrieved

thereby the petitioner preferred an appeal on the file of this Court and

the same was allowed vide judgment dated 12.02.2014 in Criminal

Appeal No.1766/2016 setting aside the conviction imposed against the

petitioner by the trial Court; v) Crime No.131 of 2007 registered for the

offences under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC, compromised in Lok Adalat on

04.02.2012.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.4 stating

that the petitioner has scant respect towards law and was involved in

various criminal cases registered on the file of Banjara Hills Police

Station and Central Crime Station (CCS), Hyderabad i.e, i) Crime

No.1282/2009 registered for the offences under Section 25(1-B)(b) of

Arms Act on the file of respondent No.5 and the said case ended in

Acquittal in C.C.No.167/2020.ii) Crime No.345/2007 registered for the

offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC & Sec.4 & 6 of

D.P.Act on the file of respondent No.5 ended in Acquittal vide

C.C.No.186/2018. iii)Crime No.936/2012 registered for the offences

under Sections 385, 506 IPC on the file of respondent No.5 ended in

acquittal vide judgment dated 06.06.2014 passed in

C.C.No.354/2013.iv) Crime No.541/2005 registered for the offences

under Sections 324 and 307 IPC, which was later to Section 302 r/w 34

IPC on the file of respondent No.5. The said case ended in Conviction

vide S.C.No.227/2006. That on an appeal preferred on the file of this

Court, conviction was set aside videjudgment dated 12.2.2014 passed

in Crl.A.No.1766/2006.v) Crime No.131/2007 registered for the

offences under Sections 324 r/w 34 IPC on the file of respondent No.5

was compromised in LokAdalat on 04.02.2012. It is further stated that

the petitioner was bound over under Section 107 Cr.P.C before the

Special Executive Magistrate Court, Hyderabad on 18.10.2023 vide

Mc.No.B/1649/2023.It is further submitted that in view of involvement

of petitioner in criminal cases, it has become redundant on the part of

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

unlawful activities. In this connection, the respondent No.4 accorded

permission vie No.707/OW/ACP-BH/2008 dated 17.02.2007

respectively to open rowdy sheets against the petitioner on the file of

respondent No.4 and since then the rowdy sheets have been maintained

by the respondent No.4 and the same is continued upto 31.12.2024.

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 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 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 to 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 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

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)

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

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.

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, 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.

9. In view of the above and inasmuch as in catena of cases, the