Boe Narendra Sai Reddy Vs the State of Ap

BOE NARENDRA SAI REDDY, C/O. BOE DURGA PRASAD, AGED 36 YEARS, YADDANAPUDI VARI STREET, CHINNA SAL BABA GUDI SANDU, CHERUVU CENTER, VIJAYAWADA. KRISHNA DISTRICT. A.P.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HOME) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522237.

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, VIJAYAWADA CITY, KRISHNA DISTRICT - 520001.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, VIJAYAWADA CITY, KRISHNA DISTRICT - 520001.

¶15

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BHAVANI PURAM POLICE STATION, VIJAYAWADA. PIN-520012.

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶18

SASI KANTH BUSI

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶20

2

¶21

Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.36668 of 2025 Dated 02.02.2026

¶22

GP FOR HOME

¶23

The Court made the following:

¶24

ORDER :

¶25

The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶26

“…to issue a Writ Order or direction particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No 4 in opening and continuing the Suspect sheet vide its impugned proceedings 321/2T/VC/2017 without following the police standing orders no 742 601 and 6022 of the Andhra Pradesh police manual as illegal arbitrary and in violation of Art 14 16 19 21 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the impugned proceedings 321/2T/VC/2017 against the petitioner and pass….”

¶27

Mr. Sasi Kanth Busi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that respondent No.4 opened a suspect sheet vide impugned proceedings No.321/2T/VC/2017 without following Police Standing Orders Nos.742, 601, and 602 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual, and that the suspect sheet is still continuing, which is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. He, therefore, urged to set aside the impugned proceedings. Respondent No.3 has filed a counter.

¶28

Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, submits that a case in Crime No.360 of 2016 for the offence punishable under Section 379 of ‘the IPC’ was registered by the Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Vijayawada, and the said case was

¶29

3

¶30

Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.36668 of 2025 Dated 02.02.2026

¶31

compromised before the Lok Adalat on 11.02.2017. It is further submitted that, in order to curb and curtail the unlawful activities of the petitioner in the vicinity of II Town Police Station, Vijayawada, the Station House Officer of II Town Police Station, Vijayawada, opened suspect sheet/rowdy sheet No.321 against the petitioner after obtaining permission from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, West Zone, respondent No.3, vide proceedings in C.No.110/HS/ACP-WD/2017, dated 09.05.2017. On the point of jurisdiction,

¶32

it is submitted that the suspect sheet/rowdy sheet was transferred to Bhavanipuram Police Station on 16.06.2017, and the same is being continued.

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader.

¶34

Standing Order 600(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual enables respondent No.3 to open a suspect sheet or history sheet under the orders of respondent No.2.

¶35

As per Andhra Pradesh Police Manual Order No.600 (1) the following persons should be classified as suspects and History Sheets shall be opened for them under the order of the Superintendent of Police/SDPO.

¶36

i. Persons, convicted under any section of the Indian Penal Code, who are considered likely to commit crime again.

¶37

ii. Persons, not convicted but believed to be addicted to crime.

¶38

iii. Members of Criminal gangs or organized criminal syndicates who have been charge sheeted.

¶39

4

¶40

Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.36668 of 2025 Dated 02.02.2026

¶41

iv. Communal and Caste activists who are known to instigate, organize violence or spark off communal or caste riots.

¶42

v. Smugglers, hoarders, black marketers and for professional land grabbers, boot legers, sand smugglers, persons charged under money laundering Act,

¶43

vi. Assault on Public Servant.

¶44

vii. Attempt to murder (307 IPC), Murder (302 IPC)

¶45

viii. Chain snatching

¶46

ix. Extended under City Police Act/other Acts like Anti-Social Hazardous Activities (Prevention) Act.

¶47

x. Extended under Anti-Social Activities, Hazardous Activities (Prevention) Act, 1980 and other Acts.

¶48

xi. Rape Cases U/s.376 IPC, 376A, C,D,E.

¶49

xii. Trafficking cases U/s.370, 370A, 366A, 366B, 372, 373 IPC including Immoral Traffic Prevention Act Sections.

¶50

xiii. Cases of POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶51

xiv. Cases U/s. 354, 354A to 354D, 326A, 326B of IPC.

¶52

xv. Listed accused in Multi-level Marketing cases/White Collar Crime.

¶53

xvi. Persons charged under unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

¶54

7. On careful perusal of the Standing Orders, the respondent cannot open

¶55

or continue a rowdy sheet/suspect sheet against the petitioner, inasmuch as the petitioner does not fit into any of the conditions enumerated in the said Standing Orders. The petitioner has not committed any offence mentioned in the Standing Orders. A case in Crime No.360 of 2016 was registered, and the same ended in acquittal by way of compromise before the Lok Adalat.

¶56

5

¶57

Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.36668 of 2025 Dated 02.02.2026

¶58

8. In pari materia , this Court in Tadiboyina Peraiah @ Mahesh v. State

¶59

of A.P¹ held that when no crimes are pending against a person and no material is produced to demonstrate threat to public peace, continuation of a rowdy sheet under Standing Order No. 601 or 602(2) of the A.P. Police Standing Orders is impermissible.

¶60

Similarly, in Sunkara Satyanarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh² , a Coordinate Bench categorically observed that rowdy sheets cannot be opened in a casual or mechanical manner. Mere dubbing of an individual as a habitual offender is insufficient. The Police must exercise due care and caution before branding a person as a rowdy, and the essential consideration is whether the acts of such person have a tendency to disturb public peace and tranquility.

¶61

A careful reading of these precedents clearly indicates that the creation or continuation of rowdy sheet requires strict adherence to procedural safeguards and regular review by the statutorily designated authorities. The Respondents are duty-bound to examine whether the alleged misconduct genuinely affects public peace. In the present case, the Petitioner was acquitted in Crime No.360 of 2016 through a compromise before the Lok Adalat. In such circumstances, the continuation of the impugned suspect sheet amounts to an arbitrary exercise of power and constitutes an abuse of process.

¶62

12021 (2) ALT (Crl.) 161

¶63

22000(1) ALD (Crl.) 117 (AP)

¶64

6

¶65

Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.36668 of 2025 Dated 02.02.2026

¶66

For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is disposed of, declaring

¶67

that the continuation of the impugned suspect sheet against the Petitioner is illegal. The Respondent authorities are directed to forthwith close the said suspect sheet opened against the petitioner. No order as to costs.

¶68

As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶69

_________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J

¶70

Date: 02.02.2026 RSI

¶71

7

¶72

Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.36668 of 2025 Dated 02.02.2026

¶73

131