Telangana High Court

Mohd. Omer Ali vs The State Of Telangana on 6 March, 2024

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

                      WRIT PETITION No.21852 of 2023

ORDER:

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

No.4 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 respondent No.4 to close

the rowdy sheet opened against him.

2. The petitioner claims to be a permanent resident of Hyderabad. It

is his case that in the year 2021 the Station House Officer, P.S

Chaderghat has registered a case in Crime No.243 of 2021 against him

for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 102(B), 147, 148

r/w 149 of IPC wherein the petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.5.

It is his further case that basing on the alleged solitary offence,

Chaderghat Police opened a rowdy sheet against him subsequently in the

year 2021. 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.4 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 Inspector of Police,

Chaderghat Police Station, Hyderabad, respondent No.4 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 Crime No.243 of 2021 for the offences

punishable under Sections 302, 201, 102(B), 147 and 148 r/w 149 of

IPC, and subsequently, the Chaderghat Police filed charge sheet before

the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad vide

Sr.No.1258 of 2022, dated 12.10.2022, S.C.No., is awaited and he was

also involved in Crime No.444 of 2022 for the offences punishable under

Sections 406 and 420 of IPC and Sections 7 of E.C., Act; Section 17(e)

which is pending trial vide C.C.No.737 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,

Sultanbazar Division, the rowdy sheet has been opened against the

petitioner on the file of Chaderghat Police Station, Hyderabad. Since then

respondent No.5 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.

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

AIR 1963 SC 1295

AIR 1984 SC 1334

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

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

1987(2) ALT 904

1997(6) ALD 583

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:

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. The erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Majid

Babu vs. Government of A.P. 9 observed as under:-

"Two instances would not make a person a habitual offender. At least more than two instances should be present before a person can be described as habitual offender. Merely because the two persons are figuring as accused in respect of two crimes registered by the Police, no inference can be drawn that they are habitual offenders."

11. In the present case, as per the counter-affidavit, the petitioner is

involved in two cases and these cases have nothing to do with breach of

peace. It is not the case of the respondents that commission of these

offences has resulted in breach of peace in village or town, as the case

may be. Involvement in two cases itself would not attract clause (a) of

9 1987(2) ALT 904

Standing Order 742 of A.P. Police Manual and the person cannot be

treated as rowdy and no rowdy sheet can be opened against such person.

Be that as it may, even the said two cases registered against the

petitioner, admittedly, had not resulted in any breach of peace. Viewed

from any angle, the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner is ultra

vires the Police Standing Orders. The action of the respondents in