Telangana High Court

Syed Javeed vs The State Of Telangana on 27 March, 2024

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

                   WRIT PETITION No.4268 of 2024

ORDER:

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

Nos.3 to 7 in opening and maintaining rowdy sheet against him as illegal,

arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India

and for the consequential reliefs.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was implicated in three

criminal cases viz., (i) S.C.No.447 of 2008 on the file of VII Additional

Assistant Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar which

ended in acquittal on 17.01.2014; (ii) Crime No.597 of 2012 on the file of

P.S. Banjara Hills, which ultimately ended in compromise before the Lok

Adalat on 10.07.2012; and (iii) S.C.No.417 of 2014 on the file of III

Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, at Hyderabad, which ultimately

ended in acquittal on 07.11.2016. It is the further case of the petitioner

that 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 respondent No.3 stating that

initially the petitioner was involved in three cases viz., (i) Crime No.100 of

1996 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 506 and 427

of IPC; (ii) Crime No.727 of 1997 for the offence punishable under Section

70(b) of C.P. Act; and (iii) Petty Case No.739 of 1997 for the offence

punishable under Section 70(A) of C.P.Act. It is further stated that in

view of involvement of the petitioner in the aforesaid crimes, pursuant to

the proposals vide No.106/OW/PS-BH/1998 dated 18.02.1998

submitted by the petitioner then Inspector of Police, Banjara Hills Police

Station, Hyderabad, the then Assistant commissioner of Police,

Panjagutta Division, Hyderabad, vide Memo No.161/GL/ACP-PGa/98,

dated 16.01.1998 accorded permission to open suspect sheet against the

petitioner. It is further stated that even after opening the suspect sheet,

the petitioner committed the crimes viz., (i) Crime No.249 of 1998 for the

offences punishable under Section 449, 506, 353 IPC, which ended in

acquittal on 01.11.1997 (ii) Crime No.179 of 1999 for the offence

punishable under the Arms Act, which ended in acquittal on 05.07.2001;

(iii) Crime No.354 of 1999 for the offence punishable under Section 107

of Cr.P.C, wherein the Special Executive Magistrate, Hyderabad, directed

his bind over; (iv) Crime No.25 of 2000 for the offences punishable under

Sections 448, 427 and 506 of IPC, which ended in compromise before the

Lok Adalat; (v) Crime No.464 of 2001 for the offence punishable under

Section 107 of Cr.P.C wherein the learned Special Executive Magistrate,

Hyderabad, bound over the petitioner; (vi) Crime No.597 of 2012 for the

offences punishable under Sections 354, 341, 506 IPC which ended in

compromise on 10.07.2022 before the Lok Adalat; and (vii) Crime No.265

of 2012 for the offence punishable under Section 41 of Cr.P.C wherein

the Special Executive Magistrate, Hyderabad, bound over the petitioner.

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 are not interfering

with the life and liberty of the petitioner.

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

AIR 1963 SC 1295

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

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

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)

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.

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/suspect 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.

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

as per the Standing Orders of A.P. Police Manual, this Court is of the

opinion that the action of the respondents police in maintaining the