Telangana High Court

Nukapeyi Rajendra Vardhan vs The State Of Telangana on 1 March, 2024

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

             WRIT PETITION No.34050 of 2023

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action

of respondents in not closing the rowdy sheet opened

against him and continuing the same even after the

petitioner was acquitted in all the criminal cases as illegal,

arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the

Constitution of India and to consequently direct the

respondents to close the rowdy sheet opened against him

and not to harass him in any manner.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondents-

police have registered 11 cases against him. Out of the

above cases, some of the cases are closed as mistake of fact

and false, some of the cases were compromised before the

Lok Adalath and in some of the cases the petitioner was

acquitted. The particulars of which are as under:-

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

1. Cr.No.51 of 203 -- Referred as under Sections 294 mistake of fact

(b), 324, 506 read with 343 of I.P.C. 1

CVBR, J Wp_34050_2023

of 2006 Under Sections 341, 427, 323 and 506 of IPC

2. Crime No.110 of C.C.No.1295 of 2006 Acquitted on 2006 under Sections 22.02.2008 448, 384, 506 read with 34 of IPC

3. Crime No.268 of C.C.No.640 of 2007 Acquitted on 2006 under Sections 31.03.2009 294 (b), 506 read with 34 of IPC

4. Crime No.223 of -- Referred as 2007 under Sections false on 294 (b), 354 and 307 17.04.2008 of IPC

5. Crime No.154 of C.C.No.153 of 2009 Acquitted on 2008 under Sections 21.09.2010 326 read with 34 of IPC

6. Crime No.26 of 2009 -- Acquitted on under Section 160 of 29.03.2011 IPC

7. Crime No.130 of C.C.No.257 of 2011 Compromised 2011 under sections on 16.06.2012 454, 380 and 411 of IPC

8. Crime No.250 of C.C.No.1472 of 2014 Compromised 2014 under Section on 16.06.2012 506 of IPC

9. Crime No.77 of 2017 C.C.No.18 of 2017 Compromised under Sections 504, on 26.03.2019 506 and 294 (b) read with 34 of IPC

10. Crime No.201 of -- Acquitted on 2017 under Section 12.12.2020 188 of IPC

11. Crime No.238 of C.C.No.688 of 2019 Closed on 2018 under Section 16.04.2011 188 of I.P.C.

As on date no criminal cases are pending against him in

any police station. However, basing on the alleged

offences, the respondents opened rowdy sheet against him.

CVBR, J Wp_34050_2023

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.2

stating that the petitioner was involved in 11 cases as

stated supra. It is also stated that basing on the

instructions issued by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer,

Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District, , rowdy

sheet has been opened against the petitioner vide

C.No.1623/SDO-D/2007, dated 26.12.2007 and the same

is being maintained against the petitioner. 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, 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

CVBR, J Wp_34050_2023

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 there is

no case registered against the petitioner after closure of the

aforesaid criminal cases.

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

AIR 1963 SC 1295

AIR 1984 SC 1334

CVBR, J Wp_34050_2023

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 the principles laid down in the catena of judgments

held that history sheet of a rowdy can be continued (i) if the

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_34050_2023

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.

8. 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.

CVBR, J Wp_34050_2023

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"'

9. 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

CVBR, J Wp_34050_2023

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."

10. 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)

CVBR, J Wp_34050_2023

(2) Instructions in Order 735 regarding discontinuance of History Sheets shall also apply to Rowdy Sheets."

11. 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