Allowed

Tamarana Yerramnaidu, v. The State of A.P.

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Sept 2024WP/17044/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought closure of rowdy sheets opened in 2015, having been acquitted in all cases against them with nothing now pending. The court held they do not fall within Police Standing Order No.601's habitual-offender clauses and that continuing the sheets was abuse of process, directing police to close them forthwith.

What did the court decide?

Writ allowed; respondent police directed to close the rowdy sheets against the petitioners forthwith on receipt of the order. No costs.

Tamarana Yerramnaidu, Vs The State of A.P. — Quashing and FIR | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

APHC010333762024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3368]

¶5

FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 17044/2024

¶9

Between:

¶10

Tamarana Yerramnaidu, and Others

¶11

...PETITIONER(S)

¶12

AND

¶13

The State Of A P and Others

¶14

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶16

1.K K DURGA PRASAD

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶18

1.GP FOR HOME

¶19

The Court made the following order:

¶20

This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed for the following relief:

¶21

“to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent Authorities in continuing the suspect sheet bearing No 23 and 24 vide No 601 l C No lO/H S/ASP/NP/NPM/2015 and No 601 l C No

¶22

¶23

11/H S/ASP/NP /NPM/2015 issued by the 4th Respondent from 2015 onwards till date against the Petitioners is as illegal arbitrary and consequently direct the Respondent Authorities to close the sheet bearing No 23 and 24 as stated supra issued by the 4th Respondent in the interest of Justice and to pass such...”

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that all the cases which were registered against the petitioners herein are no longer pending and the petitioners got acquitted in all the cases and therefore, continuation of the rowdy sheet against the petitioners is not in accordance with the Police Standing Order No.601.

¶26

Learned Assistant Government Pleader on instructions

¶27

would submit that the petitioners were involved in certain offences earlier. Though the cases are no longer pending against the petitioners at present, there is a chance that the petitioners may repeat the offences and likely to indulge in violence.

¶28

¶29

Admittedly, the impugned rowdy sheet was opened against the petitioners earlier with certain alleged offences. Even as per the counter affidavit, no other case is pending against the petitioners herein as on today. It is not the case of the respondent police that the petitioners have been shown as accused in any other case or they were directed to bind over under Section 107 Cr.P.C. Going by the Police Standing Order No.601, the petitioners would not come within the purview of any of the clauses mentioned therein. Clause 1 of the Police Standing Order No.601 contemplates that rowdy sheets may be opened against the 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. In the present case on hand, except the above mentioned cases registered against the petitioners herein, there are no other cases pending against them. By virtue of the same, it can safely be inferred that the petitioners herein would not come within the purview of habitual offender. Neither had they abetted the commission of offences involving breach of peace nor were they responsible for causing disturbances to public order or security. When such is the case, continuation of rowdy sheet against the petitioners herein would amount to abuse of process of the Court.

¶30

¶31

In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is allowed directing the respondent/Police to take necessary action forthwith, for closure of the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioners herein, soon after receipt of copy of the order.

¶32

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs.

¶33

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶34

_______________________ ____ JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

¶35

Dated: 13.09.2024. PSA

¶36

¶37

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

¶38

WRIT PETITION NO: 17044 of 2024

¶39

Date: 13.09.2024

¶40

PSA

Tamarana Yerramnaidu, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tamarana Yerramnaidu, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Komatiguntla Jyothi Vs the State of Ap

P G Gowd Vs the State of Ap

Chilkaluripeta Recreation Club, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Lankothala Pallavi Vs the State of Ap

Makkuva Srilakshmi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Udumula Durgareddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh