Karre Jagadish Chowdary vs The State Of Telangana

Telangana High Court

Karre Jagadish Chowdary vs The State Of Telangana on 10 January, 2024

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

                WRIT PETITION NO.30346 OF 2023

ORDER:

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to declare the

action of the official respondents in opening Suspect/Rowdy

Sheet against the petitioner on the file of the official

respondents 3 to 5, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles

14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, to

direct the official respondents to drop all further proceedings by

removing/withdrawing Suspect/Rowdy Sheet against the

petitioner.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was falsely

implicated as accused in Crime No.233 of 2019, dated

19.10.209 registered by P.S., C.C.S., Hyderabad under Section

420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the

same was numbered as C.C.No.12214 of 2020, dated

19.12.2020 on the file of the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. Earlier, the police of

Chikkadpally P.S. registered a crime vide FIR.No.167 of 2010

under Sections 468, 420 and 417 IPC against him and after

filing of charge sheet, the case was numbered as C.C.No.523 of

2011 on the file of the IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at 2 CVBR,J W.P.NO.30346 OF 2023

Nampally, Hyderabad and after full-fledged trial, the IX

Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, acquitted him from the said

charges on 17.08.2012. Likewise, another case in Crime No.186

of 2012 for the offences under Sections 471, 419, 420 and 468

IPC of P.S. Nacharam was registered against him, which was

numbered as C.C.No.402 of 2012 on the file of the XIII

Metropolitan Magistrate Court at L.B.Nagar and in the said case

also, the petitioner was acquitted from the charges on

24.11.2015. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though

one case i.e. C.C.No.12214 of 2020 on the file of the XII

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally,

Hyderabad is pending against him, the police, in the name of

interrogation, have been frequently calling him to Police Station

and making him to wait hours together on suspicion and also

coming to his house in the midnight and calling him to come

down and taking his pictures. It is further submitted that on

13.12.2021, he received a call from the fourth respondent

asking him whether he is staying in the same house or not and

warned him to settle the matter in Crime No.233 of 2019, in

which case he was falsely implicated and threatened him to

implicate in similar offences if he did not oblige his words. The

grievance of the petitioner is that even though investigation has 3 CVBR,J W.P.NO.30346 OF 2023

been completed, charge sheet has been filed and the said case is

pending for trial, the respondent police authorities, at the

instance of the complainant's family, have been harassing,

threatening and trying to detain him in the police station under

the guise of the said case without any reasons and thereby, he

is facing much inconvenience and hardship.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent Nos.4

and 5 herein, inter aila stating that the petitioner is a rowdy

sheeter and in this connection, the Assistant Commissioner of

Police, Automobile Team, CCS, DD, Hyderabad, accorded

permission to open Suspect Sheet against the petitioner and

accordingly, suspect sheet was opened against him on

01.11.2021 and on the point of jurisdiction, it was transferred

to the fifth respondent-Police Station on 25.11.2021 and it stood

renewed up to 31.12.2023. It is further contended that the

petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.167 of 2010 of

Chikkadpally Police Station, Hyderabad, for the offences under

Sections 420, 460 and 471 IPC. The said crime was charge-

sheeted vide C.C.No.523 of 2011 on the file of the IX Additional

Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad at Nampally but the said

case ended in acquittal on 17.08.2012. It is further contended

that the petitioner is accused No.3 in Crime No.186 of 2012 of 4 CVBR,J W.P.NO.30346 OF 2023

Nacharam Police Station for the offences under Sections 420,

419, 468 and 471 IPC, which was ended in acquittal vide

C.C.No.402 of 2012 on the file of the XIII Metropolitan

Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar. It is further submitted

that the police are not calling him to the Police Station and not

making him to wait hours together and also not visiting his

house in the midnight and not calling him to come down and

not taking his pictures. The police are not interfering with the

life and liberty of the petitioner except maintaining suspect

sheet against the petitioner and they are not harassing him or

calling him to the Police Station. It is further submitted that

due to elections, the Special Executive Magistrate, Hyderabad

vide Mc.No.B/1147/2023, dated 17.10.2023 issued orders

binding over the petitioner for keeping good behavior for a

period of one year on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/-. The

petitioner, without disclosing the said fact, filed the present Writ

Petition falsely contending that CCS Police and Narayanaguda

Police are frequently visiting his house at day and night.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

except a solitary case which is pending for trial, there are no

cases pending against the petitioner and therefore, prayed to

close the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner. In support 5 CVBR,J W.P.NO.30346 OF 2023

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) 6 CVBR,J W.P.NO.30346 OF 2023

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:

"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

8 2020(2) ALD (Crl.) 1048 (AP) 7 CVBR,J W.P.NO.30346 OF 2023

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 8 CVBR,J W.P.NO.30346 OF 2023

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 9 CVBR,J W.P.NO.30346 OF 2023

(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 for 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 offender under Clause (A) of Standing