Telangana High Court

Ajay Gupta vs The State Of Telangana on 24 January, 2024

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

                  WRIT PETITION No.29711 of 2023

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of

respondents in not deleting his name from the list of rowdy sheet without

there being any crime pending against him and in continuing Rowdy

Sheet No.19/22-06-2019 of PS Mailardevpally, Cyberabad, inspite of his

representation submitted to the respondents on 26.08.2023 to delete his

name from the list of rowdy sheet, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of

Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and to consequently direct

the respondents to close the rowdy sheet opened against him.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was falsely implicated in Crime

No.116 of 2017 by the police of Mailardepally Police Station, Cyberabad,

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 365 of IPC

and Section 5(j)(ii) read with Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, wherein

charge sheet was filed vide S.C.No.1019 of 2017, which ultimately ended

in acquittal after elaborate trial on 10.02.2023. However, basing on the

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

main grievance of the petitioner is that even though there are no criminal

cases pending against him, the respondents with a mala fide intention

are 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.4 stating that

the petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.116/2017 registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 376, 365 of IPC and Section 5(j)(ii)

read with Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 on the file of Mailardevpally

Police Station, and the same ended in acquittal vide S.C.No.1019 of 2017

before the Hon'ble Fast Track Special Court for Trial and Disposal of

Rape and Pocso Act Cases, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar. It is

further stated that since the petitioner is an active criminal, in order to

keep a close watch on his movements, the then Station House Officer has

submitted proposals dated 20.06.2019 requesting the Assistant

Commissioner of Police, Rajendranagar Division, Cyberabad, to accord

permission to open rowdy sheet against the petitioner and as per the

permission accorded by the said officer vide proceedings No.19/Rowdy

Sheet/ACP-RN/CYB/2019 dated 22.06.2019, rowdy sheet was opened

against the petitioner. It is also stated that in view of opening of rowdy

sheet and continuation of the same, the petitioner did not commit further

offences. It also stated that except continuing the rowdy sheet, the

petitioner was not called to police station and his liberty was not

infringed in any manner. It is further stated that in view of past conduct

of the petitioner and the impending elections, it is necessary to continue

the rowdy sheet against the petitioner and as such his representation

dated 26.08.2023 was not considered.

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

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 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,

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)

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:

"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.

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

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 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 subsequent to

the closure/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