Telangana High Court

Syed Gulam Samdani Quadri Alias Moulana ... vs The State Of Telangana on 31 January, 2024

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

                     WRIT PETITION No.31625 of 2023

ORDER:

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

No.5 in opening and continuing the history sheet against the petitioner

as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India

and to consequently direct respondent No.5 to close the history sheet

opened against him.

2. The case of the petitioner is that in the year 2020 acting on a

complaint lodged by one Mr. Q.M.Minhajuddin @ Shaikh Fasihuddin,

who is a Islamic Preacher against him, a case in Crime No.73 of 2020

has been registered on the file of Shahalibanda Police Station,

Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 295(A), 505(2),

153(A) of IPC, wherein charge sheet has been filed vide C.C.No.4826 of

2020 on the file of XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad

and the same is pending for trial. It is the further case of the petitioner

that he was falsely implicated in another case vide Crime No.48 of 2021

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 506

of IPC, wherein charge sheet was filed vide C.C.No.6657 of 2021 on the

file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and the same is also

pending for trial. It is his further case that on 28.10.2023 he came

across a news article published in Munsif Daily Newspaper and Deccan

Chronicle Daily News paper that the Shahalibanda Police, Hyderabad,

respondent No.5 herein, opened history sheet against him based on the

aforesaid two cases, without any cause of action. The main grievance of

the petitioner is that even though there are no other criminal cases

pending against him, except the aforesaid two cases, respondent No.5

with a mala fide intention is continuing the history 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 herein stating

inter alia that the petitioner is of unlawful character and continuously

indulging in the commission of lawless acts involving breach of public

peace and tranquility and as per the available records, the petitioner was

involved in (i) Crime No.73 of 2020 registered on the file of Shah Ali

Banda Police Station, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under

Sections 295(A), 505(2), 153(A) of IPC, wherein charge sheet has been

filed vide C.C.No.4826 of 2020 on the file of XVI Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad at Nampally and the same is

pending for trial; (ii) Crime No.156 of 2005 registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 406, 506, 420 of IPC and Section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act on the file of Golconda Police Station,

Hyderabad, which has been referred as lack of evidence and as such

after completion of investigation, final report has been filed on

28.08.2005 before the concerned Court; (iii) Crime No.48 of 2021

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 506

of IPC, wherein charge sheet was filed vide C.C.No.12615 of 2021 on the

file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and the same has been

settled before Lok Adalat vide Crl.M.P.No.1046 of 2022; and (iv) Crime

No.23 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406,

420, 506 of IPC on the file of Hussaini Alam Police Station wherein

charge sheet has been filed on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at

Nampally, Hyderabad, vide C.C.No.6657 of 2021 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, Chatrinaka Division, Hyderabad, vide

proceedings No.321/1W/ACP/CNK-DVN/2023 dated 25.10.2023, the

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

Ali Banda Police Station, Hyderabad, respondent No.5 herein and the

same is being maintained against the petitioner. It is stated that in view

of pendency of above two criminal cases, 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 two

cases which are 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

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)

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. The erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Majid

Babu vs. Government of A.P. 9 observed as under:-

"Two instances would not make a person a habitual offender. At least more than two instances should be present before a person can be described as habitual offender. Merely because the two persons are figuring as accused in respect of two crimes registered by the Police, no inference can be drawn that they are habitual offenders."

11. In the present case, as per the counter-affidavit, the petitioner is

involved in four cases, out of which one case was closed as lack of

evidence, one case was settled before Lok Adalat and the remaining two

cases are pending for trial. It is not the case of the respondents that

commission of these offences has resulted in breach of peace in village or

1987(2) ALT 904

town, as the case may be and as such involvement in these cases would

not attract clause (a) of Standing Order 742 of A.P. Police Manual.

Viewed from any angle, the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner is

ultra vires the Police Standing Orders. The action of the respondents in

opening rowdy sheet against the petitioner is illegal and

unconstitutional.