Allowed

Bommisetti Chiranjeevi v. The State

Telangana HC20 Mar 2012WP/3444/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court examined a writ petition challenging the maintenance of a suspect sheet against the petitioner. Finding that the petitioner was acquitted of the underlying criminal charge and no other case was pending, the court held that continuing the sheet was unreasonable under police regulations.

What did the court decide?

The suspect sheet opened against the petitioner and maintained on the file of II-Town Police Station, Vijayawada City is hereby quashed.

Bommisetti Chiranjeevi Vs The State — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.3444 of 2012

¶3

Date : 20.03.2012

¶4

Between :

¶5

Bommisetti Chiranjeevi.

¶6

…..Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

The State, rep. by the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City & another.

¶9

…..Respondents

¶10

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3444 of 2012

¶11

ORDER :

¶12

This writ petition is filed, seeking directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in not removing the petitioner’s name from the suspect sheet on the file of II-Town Police Station, Vijayawada City, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶13

It is the case of the petitioner that he is a resident of Mahanthi Puram in Vijayawada and presently working as Salesman in Charmas Cigarettes Company. It is alleged that he was wrongly implicated in certain criminal cases, and based on the same, a suspect sheet is opened and is being continued without recording valid reasons.

¶14

Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, the 2^nd respondent has filed counter affidavit. In the counter, while denying the allegations of the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner was involved in Crime No.289 of 2005 registered for the offence under Section 394 of IPC on the file of Satyanarayanapuram Police Station, Vijayawada City, which ended in acquittal after trial in C.C.No.338 of 2006 by judgment, dated 06.10.2009, passed by the learned I-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. It is stated in the counter that in view of involvement of petitioner in the above criminal case, after obtaining permission from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Zone, Vijayawada, a

¶15

suspect sheet was opened against the petitioner and it has been transferred to the II-Town Police Station, Vijayawada City on 08.03.2008 and is being renewed from time to time and it is extended upto 31^st of December 2012. In the counter, it is categorically stated that at present, no case is pending against the petitioner.

¶16

Opening of suspect sheets is governed by Police Standing Order No.598-1. In the said Standing Order, certain categories of persons, against whom suspect sheets can be opened, are mentioned. The said Standing Order reads as under :

¶17

“598-1 : The following persons should be classified as suspects and History Sheets shall be opened for them under the orders of the Superintendent of Police or Sub-Divisional Officer.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

C. Members of criminal gangs or organized criminal syndicates.

¶21

D. Activist communal and caste elements who are known to instigate, organize violence or spark off communal or caste riots.

¶22

E. Smugglers, hoarders and black marketers.”

¶23

In this case, though it is the case of respondents that the petitioner is accused in Crime No.289 of 2005, even as per the counter affidavit, he was already acquitted by

¶24

competent criminal court. Except registration of one case, in which he is already acquitted, the petitioner is not indulged in any further crimes, and further, it is categorically stated that at present, no cases are pending against the petitioner. In view of the acquittal recorded by the competent Court in C.C.No.338 of 2006, and in the absence of registration of any other case, there is no reason for continuing the suspect sheet opened against the petitioner. Even as per the Police Standing Orders, once a suspect sheet is opened, the same should be reviewed periodically basing on the conduct of the person against whom such sheet is opened. In this case, it is to be noticed that no valid reasons are assigned for continuing the suspect sheet against the petitioner, though he was acquitted in C.C.No.338 of 2006.

¶25

For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the suspect sheet opened against the petitioner, which is being maintained on the file of II-Town Police Station, Vijayawada City, is hereby quashed. No order as to costs.

¶26

___________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶27

20^th March 2012 ajr

Bommisetti Chiranjeevi v. The State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bommisetti Chiranjeevi v. The State

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

P.D.R. Rayalu Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Kovuru Seshaiah, Vs Superintendent of Police

Chilka Swamy Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Police

Gorla Swarnamma Vs Mr. I.Bhaktavatsala Reddy

M/s. Brandix India Apparel City Private Limited., Vs The District Collector

Mohd. Nizam Vs The Deptuy Commissioner of Police