Telangana High Court

Mohammed Sadiq Shariff vs The State Of Telangana on 15 March, 2024

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

                     WRIT PETITION No.31639 of 2023
ORDER:

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,is

filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief:

"...to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the Respondent No.4 through his subordinates calling the Petitioner to Police Station time and again under the guise of investigation in misusing their executive powers as illegal, arbitrary, violation of executive powers and Article 14, 21 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure and consequently direct the Respondent Police not to call the Petitioner to Police Station and harass him...

2. The case of the petitioner is that basing on the complaint lodged

by one Naidu Prakash, a case in Crime No.345/2021 was registered

against him and others for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 467,

468, 193 & 120B IPC and after completion of investigation, the

respondent No.4 laid charge sheet and the same was taken cognizance

as C.C.No.410 of 2022 on the file of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate at Secunderabadand pending for trial. It is further case of

the petitioner that he was also an accused in S.C.No.180 of 2017 on the

file of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and the

said case ended in acquittal vide judgment dated 29.05.2023. It is also

case of the petitioner that except the solitary case in C.C.No.410 of

2022, no other case is pending against him. However, the respondents-

police are summoning him to the police station and confining him for

hours together stating that rowdy sheet/surveillance sheet is opened

against him.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted thatexcept a

solitary case, no case is pending against the petitioner and therefore,

prayed to close the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner. In

support of his submissions, 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 Hon'ble 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. 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 ; KammaBapuji v. Station House

Officer, Brahmasamudram 6 . He has further relied on the judgment

inPuttaguntaPasi v. Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada 7, in which,

the Hon'ble 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. The learned counsel has placed

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)

much reliance on the judgment in YerramsettiVenugopal 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. The

learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents-

police have not followed the Standing Order Nos.601, 602 and 742 of

Police Manual for maintaining the rowdy sheet against the petitioner.

4. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home

appearing for the respondents, on written instructions dated

15.11.2023, has submitted that petitioner is continuously indulging in

commission of lawless acts involving breach of public peace and

tranquility and he was involved in various crimes i.e,i) Crime

No.345/2021 registered for the offence under Section 420, 465, 467,

468, 193 & 120(B) IPC, wherein charge sheet has been filed vide

CC.No.410/2022 on the file of Hon'ble Learned XI Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad and the case is pending

trial.ii) Cr.No.398/2015 registered for the offence under Section 325,

449, 506, 509 IPC, the case has been transferred to CCS. iii)

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

Cr.No.517/2015 registered for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34

IPC the case has been ended in acquittal.iv) Cr.No.421/2020 registered

for the offence under Section 420 IPC has been compromised.v)

Cr.No.82/2021 registered for the offence under Section 120-B, 427,

447, 448, 503, 506 IPC R/w 34 IPC, & Sec.3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s)of SC ST POA

Act 1989, as amended by Act 1 of 2016.vi) Cr.No.69/2014 for the

offence under Section 447 IPC and vii) Cr.No.313/2014 for the offence

under Section 447 IPC. It is further submitted that in view of the

involvement of the Petitioner in the above criminal cases and serious

illegal acts, it has become incumbent on the part of Police to open a

rowdy sheet against the petitioner to keep watch on his activities and to

curtail unlawful activities. It is submitted that as per the proceedings of

Assistant Commissioner of Police, Begumpet, Hyderabad, Telangana

State, vide C.No.320/PS-BPT/2016 dated 25.07.2016 Rowdy Sheet has

been opened against the Petitioner on the file of Begumpet Police

Station, Hyderabad, and the same has been renewed and is being

continued till date. It is further submitted that except maintaining

rowdy sheet to keep surveillance on the activities of the Petitioner, the

Respondent No.4 did not harass the Petitioner nor interfered with his

personal life and liberty.

5. 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.

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"'

6. 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."

7. 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."

8. In the present case, after opening of the Rowdy Sheet against the

petitioner on 25.07.2016, he has involved in several crimes. It is stated

that Crime No.345/2021, which was taken cognizance as

C.C.No.410/2022 is pending for trial on the file of XI Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, at Secunderabad. As per the Standing Order

No.742, the police are required to review and renew a rowdy sheet once

a year.

9. In view of the above circumstances, the petitioner is directed to

submit a detailed representation on the file of respondent No.3 duly

enclosing the relevant material. On filing such representation, the