Telangana High Court

N. Joshi Kumar Nikhil, vs The State Of Telangana on 21 March, 2024

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

                     WRIT PETITION No.25852 of 2023

ORDER:

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

respondents 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 the respondents to

close the rowdy sheet opened against him.

2. The petitioner claims to be a permanent resident of Yelkaguda

Village, Moinabad Mandal. It is his case that in the year 2018 the

Station House Officer, P.S RGI Airport has registered a case in Cr.No.295

of 2018 against him for the offences punishable U/h Woman & Man

Burns, but later modified as Sections 302 and 420 of IPC and

subsequently, the RGI Airport Police filed charge sheet before the VIII

Additional District Judge Court, L.B.Nagar vide S.C.No.573 of 2021,

which is pending for adjudication. It is his further case that basing on

the alleged solitary offence, RGI Airport Police opened a rowdy sheet

against him and subsequently, it has been transferred to Moinabad

Police Station, respondent No.7 herein. 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.7 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, Rajendra Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad, respondent No.5

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 Cr.No.295 of 2018 for the offences punishable

under Sections 302 and 420 of IPC, which is pending trial vide

S.C.No.573 of 2021 before the VIII Additional District Judge Court,

L.B.Nagar and the same is pending for trial and the petitioner has been

bound over on 11.09.2023 under Section 107 of Cr.P.C vide C.No.900 of

2023. 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, Rajendranagar Division, Cyberabad, the rowdy

sheet has been opened against the petitioner on 24.08.2020 on the file of

RGI Airport Police Station, Cyberabad. Since the petitioner shifted his

residence from the limits of RGI Airport Police Station, rowdy sheet has

been transferred to respondent No.7 as per the proceedings of the Deputy

Commissioner of Police, Shamshabad Zone on 24.03.2023 and since

then respondent No.7 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 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.

AIR 1963 SC 1295

AIR 1984 SC 1334

2000(1) ALD (Crl.) 117 (AP)

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

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.

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)

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.

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