High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that the opening of a rowdy sheet against the petitioner was illegal as it did not fall under Standing Order No. 601. The action was declared arbitrary and set aside.
Writ petition allowed; rowdy sheet order quashed; petitioner's name to be removed from rowdy sheets and suspect sheet boards.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION NO.7469 OF 2019
ORDER :
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
“to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction declaring the actions of the 4th Respondent in directing the 5th respondent to open rowdy sheets No.292 dt.03.06.2018 against the Petitioner vide C.No. 200/SDPO-K/2018, dated 29.05.2018 as arbitrary, illegal, unwarranted, unconstitutional and against the principles of Natural Justice and violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the rowdy sheet No.292 dt.03.06.2018 that was opened against the petitioner Pursuant to impugned Proceedings vide C.No.200/SDPO-K/2018, 29.05.2018”
The petitioner filed an application under RTI Act seeking information regarding rowdy sheet No.292 and the same was provided to the petitioner after 08.06.2019 by respondent No.5, after lapse of one year. Till then, it is not known to the petitioner whether the same was renewed in the month of December 2018. Upon application by respondent No.5 – the Circle Inspector of Police, Kurnool III Town Police Station, respondent No.4 vide his orders C.No.200/SDPO-K/2018 dated 29.05.2018 permitted to open a rowdy sheet. Subsequently, a rowdy sheet No.292 dated 03.06.2018 was opened against the petitioner as the petitioner allegedly committed offence punishable under Section 370 read with 34 of I.P.C. and under Section 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act, 1956 in Crime No.417 of 2017, and under Section 370 read with 34 of I.P.C. and under Section 3, 4, 5 and 7 of
MSM,J WP_7469_2019
2
Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act, 1956 in Crime No.23 of 2018 of Kurnool III Town Police Station.
The petitioner questioned the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner as it would not fall within any of the clauses of Standing Order No.601 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual. Therefore, opening of rowdy sheet against the petitioner is illegal and requested to set aside the same.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home filed counter contending that the petitioner is involved in Crime No.417 of 2017 and Crime No.23 of 2018 of III Town Police Station, Kurnool and in view of her involvement in the above criminal cases, to curb and curtail her unlawful activities after obtaining permission from the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Kurnool vide proceedings C.No.200/SDPO-K/2018 dated 29.05.2018 opened rowdy sheet against the petitioner and the same is being continued and renewed from time to time on the rolls of III Town Police Station, Kurnool. Thus, the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner cannot be set aside on mere asking and requested to dismiss the petition.
As seen from the order impugned in the writ petition vide proceedings C.No.200/SDPO-K/2018 dated 29.05.2018, the reason for passing an order to open rowdy sheet on the rolls of III Town Police Station, Kurnool is the involvement of the petitioner in Crime No.417 of 2017 for the offence punishable under Section 370 read with 34 of I.P.C. and under Section 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act 1956 and Crime No.23 of 2018 for the offence punishable under Section 370 read with 34 of I.P.C. and under Section 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act, 1956 of III Town Police Station, Kurnool. According to the learned
MSM,J WP_7469_2019
3
Assistant Government Pleader for Home, trial in both cases is completed and pending for final decision.
In view of the reason assigned, the rowdy sheet impugned in the writ petition, it is to be examined now whether the commission of alleged offence punishable under Section 370 read with 34 of I.P.C. and under Section 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act would attract any of the clauses in Standing Order No.601 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual. In the counter itself, respondent No.3 enumerated the circumstances, in which rowdy sheet can be opened, they are extracted hereunder.
“1. Persons, who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences involving a breach of the peace, disturbances to public order and security.
(376, 376, A,C D.E)
8· 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 including "loan sharks”.
10.Persons detained under the A.P. 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.
MSM,J WP_7469_2019
4
11.Persons on whom charge sheets filed under the offence of assault on public servants, under Arms Act and such other offences punishable with imprisonment of 2 years or more.
Initially, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home contended that the petitioner committed the offence punishable under Section 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act and the same would fall under clause (10) (referred above). On analysis of clause (10), rowdy sheet can be opened against the persons detained under the A.P. 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. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was not detained for a period of six months or more under the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986.
When this Court pointed out about the detention, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, conveniently shifted his stand to clause (1) (referred above), which deals with Persons, who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences involving a breach of the peace, disturbances to public order and security. But it is not the case of the police that the petitioner has committed offence involving breach of peace, disturbances to public order and security and she never abet the commission of such offence, to bring the case of the petitioner within clause (1) (referred
MSM,J WP_7469_2019
5
above). Finally, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, drawn the attention of this Court to clause (3), which deals with opening of rowdy sheet against the persons who have been convicted more than once in two consecutive years under Section 59 and 70 of the Hyderabad City Police Act or under Section 3, clause (12) of the A.P.Town Nuisances Act.
It is not the case of the police as per impugned rowdy sheet that the petitioner was convicted more than once in two consecutive years under Section 59 and 70 of the Hyderabad City Police Act or under Section 3, clause (12) of the A.P.Town Nuisances Act. In fact, no such crime was registered against the petitioner and police referred two crimes i.e. Crime No.417 of 2017 and Crime No.23 of 2018 of Kurnool III Town Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 370 read with 34 of I.P.C. and under Section 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home tried to bring the case of the petitioner under different clauses, but ultimately failed in his attempt. Therefore, opening of rowdy sheet against the petitioner for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 370 read with 34 of I.P.C. and under Section 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act is a clear illegality and it is a clear violation of Standing Order No.601 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual. Hence, I find that it is a fit case to declare the action of the respondents in opening rowdy sheet against the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary.
In the result, writ petition is allowed, declaring the action of respondent No.4 in directing the respondent No.5 to open rowdy sheet vide C.No.200/SDPO-K/2018 dated 29.05.2014 against the
MSM,J WP_7469_2019
6
petitioner as illegal and arbitrary, while directing respondents to remove the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner and remove the name of the petitioner from rowdy sheet/suspect sheet board in the concerned police station henceforth. No costs.
The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
11.12.2019 Ksp
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the opening of a rowdy sheet against the petitioner violated Standing Order No. 601 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual.
Whether the petitioner's alleged offences attracted any clause under Standing Order No. 601 to justify the rowdy sheet.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner
Respondent No. 4
Respondent No. 5
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
