Telangana High Court

Mohd Farooq Ahmed Alias Rod Farooq vs The State Of Telangana on 24 January, 2024

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

                    WRIT PETITION No.24487 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 three cases were registered against him

viz., (i) Crime No.54 of 2008 on the file of the Kalapather Police Station,

Hyderabad, for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with 34

IPC wherein charge sheet has been filed vide S.C.No.215 of 2010 on the

file of III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad,

and the same ended in acquittal on 02.09.2010 (ii) Crime No.88 of 2012

on the file of Kalapather Police Station, Hyderabad, initially for the

offences punishable under Sections 307, 427, 506 read with 34 IPC and

later on the sections of law were altered to Sections 324, 427 and 506

IPC, and the said proceedings were quashed by the High Court vide order

dated 21.02.2014 in Crl.P.No.2113 of 2014; (iii) Crime No.154 of 2022 on

the file of Bahadurpura Police Station, Hyderabad, for the offences

punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307, 324 read with 34 IPC and the

same is pending for investigation. The case of the petitioner is that

based on the alleged offences, respondent No.4 opened a rowdy sheet

against him on 08.11.2022. 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 for investigation,

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 respondent No.3 herein stating

inter alia that the petitioner was involved in three criminal cases viz.,

(i) Crime No.54 of 2008 registered on the file of the Kalapather Police

Station, Hyderabad, for the offence punishable under Section 307 read

with 34 IPC, which ended in acquittal vide S.C.No.215 of 2010 dated

02.09.2010 on the file of III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Hyderabad at Nampally (ii) Crime No.88 of 2012 registered on the file of

Kalapather Police Station, Hyderabad and the Hon'ble High Court

quashed the same vide order dated 21.02.2014 in Crl.P.No.2113 of 2014;

(iii) Crime No.154 of 2022 registered on the file of Bahadurpura Police

Station, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 147,

148, 307, 324 read with 34 IPC, wherein the petitioner was arrested on

26.06.2022 and sent to judicial custody and subsequently the case was

charge-sheeted and it is pending for trial vide SC.No.353 of 2023 on the

file of IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. 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, vide proceedings No.2725/ACP-CMNR/22, dated 28.11.2022,

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

respondent No.4 herein i.e., Bahadurpura Police station, Hyderabad, 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 on 01.09.2023 the

Special Executive Magistrate, Hyderabad, vide MC.No.B/758/2023

passed orders binding over the petitioner for good behavior. It is further

stated that in view of pendency of SC.No.353 of 2023, 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.

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)

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.

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.

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

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, 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