Awad Bin Younus Yafai vs The State Of Telangana And 5 Others

Telangana High Court

Awad Bin Younus Yafai vs The State Of Telangana And 5 Others on 10 January, 2024

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

                     WRIT PETITION No.43291 of 2022

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent

No.5 in opening and continuing the rowdy sheet against the petitioner as

illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the

Constitution of India and to consequently direct respondent No.5 to close

the rowdy sheet opened against him at Chandrayangutta Police Station,

Hyderabad.

2. The case of the petitioner is that Central Crime Station, Detective

Department, Hyderabad registered a Crime vide Cr.No.135 of 2011

against him and subsequently filed charge sheet vide S.C.No.57 of 2012

before the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for Trial of Communal

Offence cases-cum-VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Hyderabad, wherein he was arrayed as accused No.5 and the said Court

convicted him in the above crime. It is the further case of the petitioner

that he filed Criminal Appeal vide Crl.A.No.817 of 2017 and this Court

passed a common order, dated 10.11.2017 and granted bail and by

common order, dated 21.02.2022 relaxed the conditions imposed against

him. It is his further case that basing on the alleged solitary offence,

respondent No.5 opened a rowdy sheet against him. The main grievance 2

of the petitioner is that even though there are no other criminal cases

pending against him, except the aforesaid single case which is pending

trial, 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 the Assistant Commissioner of

Police, Falaknuma Division, 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 as per

the available records, the petitioner was involved in the following offences

in the limits of Chandrayangutta Police Station:

     S.No.   Crime    No.     and Police Station   Stage
             Section of law
     01.     Crime No.117 of Chandrayangutta       Case     has   been
             2007,          under                  compromised
             Sections 448, 341                     before           Lok
             and 506 r/w 149                       Adalath          on
             of IPC                                22.07.2009
     02.     Crime No.331 of Chandrayangutta       Case has been
             2007,          under                  compromised
                                                   before        Lok
             Sections 506 and
                                                   Adalath        on
             323 r/w 34 of IPC                     30.07.2010 vide
                                                   C.C.No.56 of 2009
                                         3


   03.      Crime No.135 of CCS Hyderabad          The      petitioner
            2011,        under                     herein          was
            Sections       147,                    convicted in SC
            148, 324, 326,                         No.57 of 2012 and
            307, 341, 353,                         the      petitioner
            201    r/w     149,                    preferred appeal
            102(b) of IPC and                      before the High
            Sections 25, 27                        Court and the
            (2) and 30 of Arms                     petitioner is on
            Act, 1959                              bail as on today.

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

above said cases, in order to curb and curtail the unlawful activities of

the petitioner, as per the proceedings issued by the Assistant

Commissioner of Police Falaknuma Division, Hyderabad dated

30.06.2011, the 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. Reference has also been

made to the Circular issued by the Director General of Police, Hyderabad,

vide C.No.2172/C13/SCRB/CID/TS/22 dated 22.07.2022 which

prescribes the procedure for opening and continuing the rowdy sheets

against the habitual offenders. It is also stated that except maintaining

the rowdy sheet against the petitioner, the respondents-police did not

harass, threaten or interfere with the life and liberty of the petitioner

much less any coercive action has been taken in any manner. It is

further stated that the petitioner has also submitted a representation 4

requesting to close the rowdy sheet against him, but in view of the above

facts and circumstances, there are no grounds to close the rowdy sheet

against the petitioner and as such prayed this Hon'ble Court to dismiss

the writ petition.

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

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 5

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 7 1998(3) ALT 55 (DB) 8 2020(2) ALD (Crl.) 1048 (AP) 6

"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"' 7

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