Telangana High Court

Syed Khawja Moinuddin Kamran vs The State Of Telangana on 21 February, 2024

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

                        WRIT PETITION No.1711 of 2024
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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.5 in opening and maintaining rowdy sheet against Petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 14, 19 (1) (e) and 21 of the Constitution of India, consequently direct the Respondent No.5 to close the rowdy sheet against the petitioner..."

2. Thepetitioner claims to be student of ACME Degree College,

Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad, pursuing B.Com Degree. It is the case of the

petitioner that he is arrayed as Accused No.1 in Crime No.93 of 2021 on

the file of Dabeerpura Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 302, 323, 341 and 506 r/w 149 IPC

and Section 3(1) of Epidemic Diseases Act and Section 51(B) of Disaster

Management Act. The Police after conducting investigation, has laid a

charge sheet and the same was taken cognizance as PRC.No.357 of

2021. Later, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions on

20.9.2022 and numbered as S.C.No.271 of 2023 and pending on the file

of Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for Trial of Jubilee Hills Car

Bomb Blast Court, Hyderabad.The grievance of the petitioner is that

basing on the solitary case, the respondent No.5 has opened a rowdy

sheet against him and in the guise of surveillance, his movements have

been restricted and as such, he is not in a position to pursue his

studies.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.5 stating

that the petitioner is unlawful character locally and continuously

indulging in the commission of lawless acts involving breach of public

peace and tranquility. It is further stated that petitioner is involved in

Crime No.93/2021 registered for the offences under Sections 302, 323,

341, 506 r/w 149 IPC and Section 3(1) of E.D Act, and Section 51(b) of

DM Act and after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been

filed on the file of VIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad

and the same was numbered as PRC No.357/2021. Thereafter, the case

was committed to the Court of Sessions and numbered as

S.C.No.271/2023 and pending on the file of Additional Metropolitan

Sessions Judge for trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Court,

Hyderabad and the same is pending for trial.It is further stated that in

view of involvement of the petitioner in aforesaid case, 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

Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Mirchowk Division, vide

No.272/IW/ACP/MC-DVN/2021 dated 08.06.2021, rowdy sheet has

been opened against the Petitioner on the file of Dabeerpura Police

Station and the same is maintained and continued up to date.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has except a solitary case, no

case is 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 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.

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)

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.

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

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

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, no case is 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