Telangana High Court

Syed Farahan Ali Syed Ghouse Ali vs The State Of Telangana on 15 March, 2024

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

                WRIT PETITION No.29568 of 2023

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:-

"...to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in calling the petitioner to the police station in confining the petitioner in the police station and monitoring the petitioner movements under the guise of Rowdy sheet even after the petitioner was acquitted in all criminal cases as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, un- warranted and contrary to the police standing order apart from violating Articles 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents close the Rowdy Sheet against the petitioner and not to harass the petitioner in any manner..."

2. The case of the petitioner is that in view of registration of

four crimes a rowdy sheet/surveillance sheet was opened

against him. The particulars of the cases registered against are

as under:-

Sl. Crime No. & Police C.C./S.C.No. Remarks No. Station

1. Cr.No.97 of 2012, S.C.No.717 of 2012 Acquitted on under Sections 302 12.02.2015 and 201 read with 34 of IPC

2. Crime No.366 of 2011, C.C.No.409 of 2011 Acquitted on under Sections 452, 28.08.2013 324, 509, 506 and 427 read with 34 of IPC

CVBR, J Wp_29568_2023

3. Crime No.280 of 2015, C.C.No.421 of 2015 Acquitted on under Section 324 read 08.03.2017 with 34 of IPC

4. Crime No.321 of 2017, C.C.No.389 of 2017 Acquitted on under Section 25 (1) (B) 22.07.2022 of the Arms Act

It is further stated that as on date no criminal cases are pending

against him in any police station. The main grievance of the

petitioner is that even though there are no criminal cases

pending against him, the respondents with a mala fide intention

are 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 respondent No.4 stating

that two cases i.e., P.R.C.No.26 of 2012 arising out of Crime

No.97 of 2012 and C.C.No.289 of 2017 arising out of Crime

No.389 of 2017 are pending against the petitioner as on date. It

is also stated that basing on the instructions issued by the

Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vanasthalipuram Division,

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

Pahadishareef Police Station vide C.No.744/ACP/SBAD/

CYB/2013, dated 22.06.2013 and the same is being maintained

and it is to be continued upto 31.12.2024. It is further stated

that as on date, two cases are pending against the petitioner

CVBR, J Wp_29568_2023

and to curb and curtail the unlawful activities of the petitioner,

a rowdy sheet was opened against him 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 been made to the

Circular No.2172/C13/ SCRB/CID/TS/22 dated 22.07.2022

issued by the Director General of Police, Hyderabad, which

prescribes the procedure for opening the rowdy sheets against

the habitual offenders.

4. A reply affidavit filed has been filed by the petitioner

stating that P.R.C.No.26 of 2012 was committed to the Sessions

Court, which was numbered as S.C.No.717 of 2012 and he was

acquitted vide judgment, dated 12.02.2015. Insofar as the

other case is concerned, the petitioner was acquitted vide

judgment, dated 22.07.2022 and he annexed the judgment

copies along with the writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as

on date, 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

AIR 1963 SC 1295

CVBR, J Wp_29568_2023

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.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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.

7. 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

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)

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

CVBR, J Wp_29568_2023

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.

8. It is apt to refer to the relevant Standing Orders of A.P.

Police Manual.

9. 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.

CVBR, J Wp_29568_2023

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"'

10. 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

CVBR, J Wp_29568_2023

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."

11. 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;

CVBR, J Wp_29568_2023

(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."

12. In the present case, 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 subsequent to the acquittal of the

criminal cases registered against him.