Telangana High Court

Mohd Abdul Qavi , Obaid vs The State Of Telangana on 3 January, 2024

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

                    WRIT PETITION No.15825 of 2023

ORDER:

This writ petition has been filed seeking to declare the action of

respondent No.4 in opening and maintaining rowdy/suspect sheet

against the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14,

19(1)(e) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct

respondent No.4 to close the rowdy sheet/suspect sheet which is been

maintained against the petitioners.

2. The case of the petitioners is that the police of Mirchowk Police

Station registered a case, vide FIR.No.81 of 2015, against the petitioners

for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 109 read with

34 of IPC and subsequently the police conducted investigation and also

filed charge sheet vide S.C.No.183 of 2016 on the file of the IV Additional

Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, which ended in acquittal vide

judgment dated 10.06.2021. It is the further case of the petitioners as

against the aforesaid order of acquittal passed by the respective Court,

no appeal has been preferred by the Government and thus the said order

of acquittal has attained finality. Therefore, no crimes are pending

against them in any police station as on date. However, basing on the

alleged offences, the respondents opened rowdy sheet against them. The

main grievance of the petitioners is that even though there are no

criminal cases pending against them, the respondents with a mala fide

intention are continuing the rowdy sheet and due to surveillance, they

are 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.4 i.e., Inspector

of Police and Station House Officer, Mirchowk Police Station, Hyderabad,

stating that the petitioners are of unlawful character and are

continuously indulging in the commission of lawless acts involving

breach of public peace and tranquility. It is further stated that there was

involvement of the petitioners in Crime No.81 of 2015 registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 109 read with Section

34 of IPC, wherein charge sheet has been filed and numbered as

S.C.No.183 of 2016 on the file of the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions

Judge, Hyderabad, which ended in acquittal vide judgment dated

10.06.2021. It is also stated that basing on the instructions issued by

the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mirchowk Division, Hyderabad,

rowdy sheet has been opened against the petitioners on the file of the

Mirchowk Police Station, Hyderabad vide proceedings

No.147(4)/IW/ACP/MC-DVN/2016, dated 18.03.2016 and the same is

being maintained against the petitioners. It is further stated that as on

date, there are no cases pending against the petitioners and to curb and

curtail the unlawful activities of the petitioners, a rowdy sheet was

opened against them to watch their movements from time to time in the

public interest as per Standing Order No.601 of A.P. Police Manual.

Reference has been made to the Circular No.2172/C13/

SCRB/CID/TS/22 dated 22.07.2022 issued by the Director General of

Police, Hyderabad, which prescribes the procedure for opening the rowdy

sheets against the habitual offenders. It is also stated that there is no

case registered against the petitioners after closure of the aforesaid

criminal case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as on date,

there are no cases pending against the petitioners and therefore, prayed

to close the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioners. 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.

AIR 1963 SC 1295

AIR 1984 SC 1334

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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

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 petitioners 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

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)

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 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 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, there are no cases

pending against the petitioners as on date to maintain the rowdy sheet or

to keep surveillance on the activities of the petitioners in any manner.

However, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners are 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 petitioners involvement in the commission of offence subsequent to

the acquittal of the criminal case registered against him.

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

Courts are consistently directing the police to maintain the rowdy sheet