Allowed

Gosula Venu Madhav v. The Superintendent Of Police

Telangana HC5 Sept 2014WP/2774/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashed the continuance of a rowdy sheet against the petitioner. The Court noted his acquittal in the underlying Section 376 IPC case and lack of subsequent cases, holding that a rowdy sheet applies only to habitual offenders in multiple cases. The First Respondent was directed to review and close the sheet within three months.

What did the court decide?

First respondent directed to review petitioner's case for closure of rowdy sheet within three months.

Gosula Venu Madhav Vs The Superintendent… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.2774 of 2010

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶5

The petitioner is a resident of H.No.7-1-181, near New Bus Stand, Hanamkonda, Warangal District. At the time of filing this Writ Petition, he passed M.Sc. (Maths) and was studying LLB II year in the University College of Law at Warangal. While so, the respondents opened a rowdy sheet on the allegation that he was involved in a criminal case under Section 376 IPC. The said case ended in acquittal in the year 2002, and in spite of acquittal in the said case, when the rowdy sheet was being continued, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition challenging the continuance of rowdy sheet as contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Police Standing Order 742.

¶6

Even after four years, the respondents did not file any counter affidavit contradicting the averments made by the petitioner in support of the Writ Petition. In the circumstances, it has to be taken that the averments made by the petitioner are true.

¶7

This Court time and again held that a rowdy sheet has to be opened in respect of habitual offenders and where the offenders are involved in more than two criminal cases. Now it is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the lone case, where the petitioner was involved, ended in acquittal, and no cases were registered thereafter.

¶8

In the circumstances, the first respondent is directed to review the case of the petitioner, in accordance with law, for closure of the rowdy sheet, if it was not already closed, and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a

¶9

copy of this order.

¶10

The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶11

________________________________ (A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J) 05.09.2014 vs

Gosula Venu Madhav v. The Superintendent Of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gosula Venu Madhav v. The Superintendent Of Police

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

Smt Kothapalli Rekha Vs The Distirct, Collector

Sri a.Sita Rama Rao Vs The Direction of Mines and Geology

Thummeti Sammi Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Ch.Balarathanam Vs The State of A.P

Sulochana Devi Sharma Vs T Narahari

Shivshette Madhava Rao Vs Nanda Kumar