Disposed

Yanamadala Anil Chand , Chandu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC13 Mar 2012WP/3493/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the legality of keeping a rowdy sheet against the petitioner. The court noted that the petitioner had been acquitted in most past cases and none pending after 2007. The petition was disposed of with permission to approach the Sub-divisional Police for closure.

What did the court decide?

Directed the petitioner to make a representation to the Sub-Divisional Police Officer for closure of the rowdy sheet within six weeks; petition disposed of.

Yanamadala Anil Chand , Chandu, Vs The State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.3493 of 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in opening and continuing rowdy sheet bearing No.256 against the petitioner, on the file of the second respondent – Station House Officer, I-Town Police Station, Ongole, Prakasam District, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶5

It is the case of the petitioner that he is a permanent resident of Mamidipalem Village, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam District, and he passed Public Health and Sanitation Course in 2009. In this Writ Petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that from 1998 to 2003, he was falsely implicated in certain crimes. Based upon the same, rowdy sheet bearing No.256 was opened against him and is being continued illegally without any reason.

¶6

In the counter-affidavit filed by the second respondent, while denying the allegations of the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner is involved in the following cases.

¶7

(i) Cr.No.156/98 under Section 324 read with 34 IPC of Ongole I Town Police Station, Prakasam District. The case ended in acquittal under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. before the Hon’ble II Additional Munsif

¶8

Magistrate, Ongole, on 17.04.1999.

¶9

(ii) Cr.No.200/1998 under Section 324 read with 34 IPC of Ongole I Town Police Station, Prakasam District. The case ended in conviction under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C. before the Hon’ble II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole, on 9.5.2000.

¶10

(iii) Cr.No.307/1999 under Sections 147, 148, 307, 302 read with 149 IPC of Ongole Taluq Police Station, Prakasam District. The case ended in acquittal.

¶11

(iv) Cr.No.114/1999 under Section 307, 509 IPC of Ongole I Town Police Station, Prakasam District. The case ended in acquittal on 11.8.2000.

¶12

(v) Cr.No.222/2001 under Section 379 IPC of Ongole I Town Police Station, Prakasam District. The case ended in acquittal by the Hon’ble II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole on 3.9.2002.

¶13

(vi) Cr.No.207/2001 under Section 379 IPC of Ongole I Town Police Station, Prakasam District. The case ended in acquittal by the Hon’ble II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole on 18.03.2002.

¶14

(vii) Cr.No.236/2001 under Section 379 IPC of Ongole I Town Police Station, Prakasam District. The case ended in acquittal by the Hon’ble II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole on 03.09.2002.

¶15

(viii) Cr.No.277/2002 under Section 8(c) read with 20-B of NDPS Act and 102 Cr.P.C. of Ongole I Town Police Station, Prakasam District. The case ended in acquittal on 11.08.2000.

¶16

(ix) Cr.No.93/2003 under Section 110(e) Cr.P.C. of Ongole I Town Police Station,

¶17

Ongole. The Hon’ble Mandal Executive Magistrate, Ongole, has bound over the petitioner for good behaviour for six months.

¶18

(x) Cr.No.56/2004 under Section 108 Cr.P.C. of Ongole I Town Police Station, Ongole. The Hon’ble Mandal Executive Magistrate, Ongole, has bound over the petitioner for good behaviour for six months.

¶19

(xi) Cr.No.164/2005 under Section 108 Cr.P.C. of Ongole I Town Police Station, Ongole. The Hon’ble Mandal Executive Magistrate, Ongole, has bound over the petitioner for good behaviour for six months on 9.9.2005.

¶20

(xii) Cr.No.322/2007 under Sections 354, 323 read with 34 IPC of Ongole I Town Police Station, Ongole. Both parties entered into a compromise before Lok Adalat, Ongole, under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C.

¶21

It is also stated that as much as the petitioner is a habitual offender, in order to curb and curtail his unlawful activities, rowdy sheet bearing No.256 was opened and is being continued against him.

¶22

I have perused the details of crimes alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, as indicated in the counter-affidavit. In most of the crimes, which were registered from 1998 onwards, he was acquitted and in some of the matters, compromise was recorded before Lok Adalath, Ongole, and Crime Nos.93 of 2003 and 56 of

¶23

2004 and 164 of 2005 were registered under Sections 110(e), and 108 Cr.P.C. respectively, to bind over the petitioner for good behaviour. Even the crime registered against him under Section 8(c) read with 20-B of NDPS Act was also ended in acquittal.

¶24

In that view of the matter, as much as the petitioner has not involved in any crimes after 2007 and as it is stated that there are no cases pending against him as of now, I deem it appropriate to permit him to make a representation before the concerned Sub-Divisional Police Officer, for closure of rowdy sheet opened against him, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. If any such representation is filed, the concerned Sub-Divisional Police Officer shall consider such representation of the petitioner for closure of rowdy sheet No.256 and take appropriate decision thereon and communicate the same to the petitioner.

¶25

Subject to the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶26

In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.4354 of 2012 also stands disposed of.

¶27

R.SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶28

13^th MARCH, 2012. Kvni/ajr

Yanamadala Anil Chand , Chandu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yanamadala Anil Chand , Chandu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bala Ananthamma, Vs The Director General of Police

Gunda Siva Kumar, Vs The Station House Officer

Md. Sirajuddin Vs The Superintendent of Police

Koki Srinivasa Reddy Vs The Government of Ap., rep.byits Secretary,Home

Killada (Vanapalli) Susmitha Vs The Police Commissioner

Gogula Venkateswara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary