Telangana High Court

Manmohan Singh vs The State Of Telangana on 12 March, 2024

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

                      WRIT PETITION No.34175 of 2023

ORDER:

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

Nos.5 and 6 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.6

to close the rowdy sheet opened against him.

2. The petitioner claims to be a permanent resident of Hyderabad. It

is his case that in the year 2020 the Station House Officer, P.S

Mangalhat has registered a case in Crime No.155 of 2020 against him for

an offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC wherein the

petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.4 and subsequently, the

Mangalhat Police filed charge sheet before the XVI Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad vide C.C.No.6746 of

2020, which is pending for adjudication and he was also implicated in

crime vide Crime No.38 of 2018 for the offences punishable under

Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985, wherein the petitioner has been arrayed as

accused No.2 and subsequently, the Mangalhat Police filed charge sheet

before the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally,

Hyderabad vide S.C.No.703 of 2018 and the same was ended in

acquittal. It is his further case that basing on the alleged solitary

offence, Mangalhat Police opened a rowdy sheet against him. 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.5 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, Golconda Division, Hyderabad, respondent No.4 herein stating

inter alia that the petitioner is of unlawful character and he is

continuously indulging in the commission of lawless acts involving

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

petitioner was involved in (i) Crime No.155 of 2020 for an offence

punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC, wherein charge sheet has

been filed vide C.C.No.6746 of 2020 before the XVI Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad and the same is pending

for trial and (ii) Crime No.38 of 2018 for the offences punishable under

Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985, wherein charge sheet has been filed vide

S.C.No.703 of 2018 before the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Nampally, Hyderabad and the same was ended in acquittal. 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 vide No.302/OW/PS-MH/2020, dated

20.07.2020 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Goshamahal

Division, Hyderabad, the rowdy sheet has been opened against the

petitioner on the file of Mangalhat Police Station, Hyderabad and the

same was transferred to Golconda Police Station on the point of

jurisdiction vide No.HS-5/Crime/3169/2020, dated 17.08.2020 and

since then respondent No.6 is maintaining the rowdy sheet against the

petitioner 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.

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 others1 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