Telangana High Court

Md Arshad vs The State Of Telangana on 23 February, 2024

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

                WRIT PETITION NO.25846 OF 2023

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:-

"...to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus holding that continuation of the Rowdy Sheet of the petitioner as illegal and in violation of the Fundamental rights of the petitioner and further to direct the respondent No.4 to close the Rowdy Sheet and not to harass the petitioner day and night and leave him at peace, so that he can earn livelihood for the petitioner and his old age parents as not a single case is registered against this petitioner in any police station for any offences and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

2. The case of the petitioner is that, in view of registration of

the criminal cases against him, a rowdy sheet/surveillance

sheet has been maintained against him. The particulars of the

cases which are registered against him are as under:-

Sl. Crime No. & Police Offences Remarks No. Station & C.C.No.

1. Cr.No.64/2015 ofU/s.147, 148, The case was P.S. Bhavaninagar, 332, 353 ended in acquittal C.C.No.28/2016 R/w.149 IPC & on 02.07.2019 Sec.7(1) of Criminal Amendment Act,

2. Cr.No.67/2015 of U/s.147, 148 The case was P.S. Moghalpura and 332 ended in acquittal C.C.No.99/2016 R/w.149 IPC on 19.06.2019 and Sec.3 & 4 of PDPP Act

3. Cr.No.68/2015 of U/s.147, 148, The case was P.S. Moghalpura 332, 353 ended in acquittal C.C.No.1130/2015 R/w.149 IPC, on 25.06.2019 Sec.3, 4 of PDPP

Act and Sec.7(1) of Criminal Amendment Act

4. Cr.No.68/2015 of U/s.147, 148, The case was P.S. Moghalpura 332, 353 ended in acquittal C.C.No.1131/2015 R/w.149 IPC, on 25.06.2019 Sec.3, 4 of PDPP Act and Sec.7(1) of Criminal Amendment Act

5. Cr.No.54/2015 of U/s.143, 147, The case was P.S. Bhavaninagar 148, 336 and ended in acquittal C.C.No.1135/2015 188 IPC on 24.01.2019

6. Cr.No.55/2015 of U/s.143, 147, The case was P.S. Bhavaninagar 148, 336 and ended in C.C.No.1136/2015 188 IPC conviction on (Crl.A.No.243/2019) 04.02.2019.

Conviction was set aside on 19.01.2024 in

It is the further case of the petitioner that as on date no

criminal cases are pending against him in any police station.

The main grievance of the petitioner is that, even though there

are no other criminal cases pending against him, respondent

No.5 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 respondent No.3

stating that the petitioner is an unlawful character locally and

continuously indulging in commission of lawless acts involving

breach of public peace and tranquility and as per the

proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mirchowk

Division, Hyderabad vide No.153(1)/IW/ACP/MC-DVN/2016,

dated 18.03.2016, rowdy sheet was opened against the

petitioner on the file of P.S. Moghalpura, Hyderabad and

subsequently, on the point of jurisdiction, the rowdy sheet was

transferred to P.S. Bhavani Nagar as per the proceedings of the

Deputy Commissioner of Police, South Zone, Hyderabad vide

No.HS-/1/72/2017, dated 04.01.2017. It is further stated that,

in view of the involvement of the petitioner in the aforesaid

cases and in order to curb and curtail the unlawful activities of

the petitioner, rowdy sheet has been opened against the

petitioner 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 also stated that, except maintaining the rowdy

sheet against the petitioner, respondent No.5 did not take any

coercive action in any manner. It is further stated that

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.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

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 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.

1 AIR 1963 SC 1295 2 AIR 1984 SC 1334 3 2000(1) ALD (Crl.) 117 (AP) 4 2004(1) ALD (Crl.) 387 (AP) 5 1987(2) ALT 904 6 1997(6) ALD 583 7 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.

7. It is apt to refer to the relevant Standing Orders of A.P.

Police Manual.

8. 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.

8 2020(2) ALD (Crl.) 1048 (AP)

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"'

9. 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."

10. 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."

11. 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

subsequently.

12. It is settled legal position that involvement of a person in

a criminal case is not sufficient to classify such a person as a

habitual offender under Clause (A) of Standing Order 601 of