Telangana High Court

Md.Imran Ahmed vs The State Of Telangana on 24 January, 2024

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

                   WRIT PETITION No.32149 of 2023

ORDER:

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

No.4 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.4 to close

the rowdy sheet opened against him.

2. The petitioner states that the police of Mirchowk Police Station,

respondent No.4 herein registered a case in Crime No.107 of 2008

against him and six others for the offences punishable under Sections

365, 302, 307 read with 34 IPC, wherein charge sheet has been filed vide

S.C.No.15 of 2012 on the file of Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge

for the Trial of Communal Offences-cum-VII Additional Metropolitan

Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, and the same ended in acquittal vide

judgment dated 24.02.2022. He also states that respondent No.4

registered another Crime No.125 of 2019 against him for the offences

punishable under Sections 406, 420, 423, 504, 507 read with 34 IPC

wherein charge sheet has been filed vide C.C.No.16468 of 2019 on the

file of VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, and the

same is pending for trial. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to

registration of the aforesaid crimes, respondent No.4 opened a rowdy

sheet against him in the year 2008. The main grievance 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.4 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, Mirchowk Division, Hyderabad, respondent No.2 herein stating

inter alia that the petitioner is of unlawful character locally 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 Crime No.107 of

2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 341, 302, 109, 201

read with 34 IPC on the file of Mirchowk Police Station, Hyderabad and

after completion of investigation charge sheet has been filed vide

S.C.No.15 of 2012 wherein the petitioner has been acquitted. It is

further stated that the petitioner was also involved in Crime 125 of 2019

registered for the offences punishable under Section 406, 420, 423, 504,

506, 507 read with 34 IPC on the file of Mirchowk Police Station,

Hyderabad, wherein after completion of investigation, charge sheet has

been filed vide C.C.No.16468 of 2019 and the same is pending for trial.

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

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

of the petitioner, as per the proceedings issued by the Assistant

Commissioner of Police, Mirchowk Division, Hyderabad, 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 further stated that the petitioner has also

submitted a representation dated 12.10.2023 to respondent Nos.2 to 4

herein requesting to close the rowdy sheet, but in view of pendency of

C.C.No.16468 of 2019, 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 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

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

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)

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 section 3, clause 12, of the AP Towns Nuisances Act.

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"'

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