Telangana High Court

Shaik Lmran vs The State Of Telangana on 27 March, 2024

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

                   WRIT PETITION No.4484 of 2024

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of

respondents in continuing the name of the petitioner in the rowdy sheet

on the file of the respondents as illegal, unconstitutional and contrary to

the standing orders and to consequently direct the respondents to

remove the name of the petitioner from the rowdy sheet forthwith.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the police of Kamatipura Police

Station had registered a criminal case against him vide Crime No.77 of

2022 for the offence punishable under Section 25(1)(b) of the Indian

Arms Act, which ended in conviction and on a criminal appeal being filed

by him aggrieved by the said conviction order vide Criminal Appeal

No.202 of 2007, an order of acquittal was passed on 12.11.2007.

Subsequently, the police of Bahadurpura Police Station registered Crime

No.22 of 2011 against the petitioner for the offences punishable under

Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 of IPC and the same ended

in acquittal on 06.03.2020. Similarly, another case has been registered

by the police of Shahlibanda Police Station against the petitioner vide

Crime No.88 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 147,

148, 307, 427 read with 149 of IPC, 25(1)(b) of Arms Act and the same

ended in acquittal on 04.04.2018. Therefore, no crimes are pending

against him in any police station as on date. However, basing on the

alleged offences, the respondents opened rowdy sheet against him. 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 by respondent No.5 stating that

the petitioner is of unlawful character and continuously indulging in the

commission of lawless acts involving breach of public peace and

tranquility. It is further stated that there was involvement of the

petitioner in (i) Crime No.77 of 2002 registered for the offence punishable

under Section 25(1)(b) of Indian Arms Act on the file of respondent No.6

which ended in conviction vide C.C.No.281 of 2004 whereupon the

petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.202 of 2007 on the file of

Metropolitan Session Judge Hyderabad and the same was allowed on

12.11.2007; (ii) Crime No.22 of 2011 registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149, 120-B IPC and

Section 25(1)(b) of Indian Arms Act on the file of Station House Officer,

Bahadurpura Police Station, Hyderabad, which ultimately ended in

acquittal on 06.03.2020 vide S.C.No.198 of 2012 on the file of II

Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad; (iii) Crime No.88 of

2013 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148,

307, 327 read with 149 120-B IPC and Section 25(1)(b) of Indian Arms

Act on the file of respondent No.6 which ended in acquittal on

04.04.2018 vide S.C.No.249 of 2016. It is also stated that basing on the

instructions issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Charminar

Division, Hyderabad, on 18.06.2011 rowdy sheet has been opened

against the petitioner on the file of Bahadurpura Police Station,

Hyderabad and subsequently the same has been transferred to

respondent No.6 on the point of jurisdiction on 29.06.2011 and

thereafter to Kamatipura Police Station, Hyderabad, as per the

proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South Zone,

Hyderabad vide No.HS-4/SZ/2357/2021 and due to re-organisation, the

rowdy sheet has been again transferred to respondent No.6 on

08.07.2023. It is further stated that as on date, there are no cases

pending against the petitioner and to curb and curtail the unlawful

activities of the petitioner, 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. It

is also stated that except maintaining the rowdy sheet, the respondents

police did not harass or threaten or interfere with the life and liberty of

the petitioner nor any coercive action has been taken against the

petitioner in any manner.

4. 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 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 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

AIR 1963 SC 1295

AIR 1984 SC 1334

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

2004(1) ALD (Crl.) 387 (AP)

1987(2) ALT 904

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.

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:

1997(6) ALD 583

1998(3) ALT 55 (DB)

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

"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, 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 closure/acquittal of the criminal cases registered against him.

11. In view of the above and inasmuch as in catena of cases, the

Courts are consistently directing the police to maintain the rowdy sheet