E Hari Krishna Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

<…to issue any writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.3 issued proceedings in C.No.O3/HS/ACP-WD/2020, 19.02.2020 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent No.3 to close the said suspect sheet against the petitioner in the interest of justice and pass…=

¶26

Mr. Satheesh Kumar Eerla, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that respondent police opened a rowdy sheet in pursuant to the proceedings issued by the respondent No.3 vide C.No.O3/HS/ACP-WD/2020 , dated 19.02.2020 on the file of Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, Vijayawada City, without following Police Standing Orders of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual, and that the rowdy 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 counter in this case.

¶27

Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, submits that a case in Crime No.511 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Section 270 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (For brevity 8the IPC9) and 20 (2) of Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 (For Brevity 8the COTP Act9) and Crime No.247 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Section 270 and 273 of 8the I.P.C9 were registered by the Station House Officer, Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, Vijayawada City, against the petitioner. In both cases, the petitioner was convicted and fine was imposed. Since the

¶28

3

¶29

date of conviction, no further cases have been registered against the petitioner. It is further submitted that, in order to curb and curtail the unlawful activities of the petitioner in the vicinity of Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, the Station House Officer, Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, opened rowdy sheet against the petitioner after obtaining permission from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, West Division, Vijayawada City/respondent No.3, vide proceedings in C.No.O3/HS/ACP-WD/2020 dated 19.02.2020.

¶30

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

¶31

As per Andhra Pradesh Police Manual Order No.601 the following persons should be classified as rowdies and rowdy sheets shall be opened for them under the order of the Superintendent of Police/SDPO.

¶32

i. 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.

¶33

ii. Persons bound over under sections 106, 107, 108(1) and 110(e) and (g) of Cr.P.C.

¶34

iii. 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 Town Nuisances Act.

¶35

iv. Persons who habitually tease women and girls and pass indecent remarks including offences U/sec. 354-A, B C and 354D IPC.

¶36

V. Persons who have been charge sheeted under the offence of Rape (376, 376, A,C D.E).

¶37

vi. Persons who have been charge sheeted under the offences of POCSO Act, 2012 and Acid Attacks (326A and 326B of IPC)

¶38

4

¶39

vii. Rowdy sheets for the rowdies residing one police station area but found frequenting the other Police Stations area, can be maintained at all such police stations.

¶40

viii. 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".

¶41

ix. Persons who incite, instigate and participate in communal/caste or political riots.

¶42

x. 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.

¶43

xi. 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.

¶44

xii Persons on who charge sheets filed under the offence of murder and attempt to murder (302 and 307 IPC)

¶45

xiii. Persons on whom charge sheets filed under the offence of chain snatching.

¶46

xiv. Persons who are convicted under the Representation of People Act, 1951for rigging, carrying away, damaging ballot paper, boxes and polling material.

¶47

On careful perusal of the Standing Orders, the respondent cannot open 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. The cases in Crime Nos.511 of 2016 and 247 of 2018 of Ibrahimpatnam Police Station were registered, in the both cases, the petitioner was convicted and fine was imposed. Pursuant to the conviction of the petitioner in the above two cases, there have been no reports that the

¶48

5

¶49

petitioner has committed any offences punishable under the provisions of 8the I.P.C9 or has attracted any of the conditions enumerated in Standing Orders of Andhra Pradesh Police Manual Order No.601(v), the Rowdy Sheet was opened against the petitioner in the year 2020. Since 2020 onwards, the accused has been maintaining a clean record. Therefore, there is no justification in continuing the rowdy sheet against the petitioner for years together.

¶50

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

¶51

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.

¶52

8. Similarly, in Sunkara Satyanarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh² , a

¶53

Coordinate Bench categorically observed that rowdy sheet 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.

¶54

A careful reading of these precedents clearly indicates that the creation

¶55

or continuation of rowdy sheet requires strict adherence to procedural safeguards and regular review by the statutorily designated authorities. The

¶56

12021 (2) ALT (Crl.) 161

¶57

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

¶58

6

¶59

Respondents are duty-bound to examine whether the alleged misconduct genuinely affects public peace.

¶60

For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed, declaring that the continuation of the impugned rowdy sheet against the petitioner is illegal. The respondent authorities are directed to forthwith close the said rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner. However, it is open to the police concerned to invoke appropriate proceedings against the petitioner if he indulges in any offences which warrant opening of any sheet, such as a rowdy sheet, suspect sheet, or history sheet.

¶61