Allowed

M. Satyanarayana Goud v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

Telangana HC22 Dec 2021WP/18970/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition held that opening a rowdy sheet against a journalist to curtail expression violated Articles 14 and 21. The court found the collection of police cases for public offences lacked application of mind and did not affect the general public.

What did the court decide?

We the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner was deleted from rowdy sheet list in the Respondent No.2 Police Station.

M. Satyanarayana Goud Vs The State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA^{AT HYDERABAD} (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN^REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 18970 OF 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

M. Satyanarayana Goud, S/o. Anjaiah, Aged^{about 30 years, Occ. Journalist,} R/o. H.No.18-369/1/9, Vijay Nagar Colony,^{Parigi Road, Shadnagar,Ranga} Reddy District.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal^{Secretary, Departmentof Home,} Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶11

The Station House Officer, Shadnagar^{Police Station, Cyberabad.}

¶12

The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad.

¶13

The Assistant Commissioner of^{Police, Shadnagar Division, Cyberabad.}

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of^{the Constitution of lndiapraying that in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavitfiled therewith, the High Court maybe} pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or^{Direction more particularly one in} ihe nature of Writ of Mandamus^{declarethe action of the Respondentshereinin} opening the Rowdy sheet against^{the petitioner herein and subjectingto Mental,} and Physical Torture by calling^{to the Police stationfrequently withoutfollowing} the due^process of law as^{being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violation of} Articles 14 and 21 of the constitution^{of lndia and consequentiallydirectthe} Respondents herein to delete^{the petitionerfrom Rowdy sheet list in the} Respondent No.2 Police Station^herein.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶17

Petition under Section 151^{CPC praying thatin the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct} the Respondent No.2 herein^{not to subjectthe petitioner herein to Mentaland} Physical Torture by calling to^{the Police Station withoutdue process of law} pending disposal of the writ^petition

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl.^{V RAGHUNATH}

¶19

Counsel forthe Respondents:^{AGPFOR HOME}

¶20

The Court made the following:

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶22

WRIT P ON No.1897 ot 202L

¶23

ORDER

¶24

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

¶25

The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondent No.2 in opening the rowdy sheet against him in the year 2021 and summoning him continuously to the police station and subjecting him to mental humiliation and indignity without following due process of law as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶26

It is submitted by the petitioner that he had been working as lournalist since 2012 in various reputed media agencies like praja Shakti and Andhra Prabha and presently working as Reporter in Shadnagar for Raj News Channel and also the Generat Secretary of Ranga Reddy District, Telangana Working Journalist Federation. He had been reporting several issues regarding sand mafia, lack of providing RTC buses to the rural areas and about the issues of illegal occupation of lands by realtors with active connivance of the Government authorities. The police, in order to curtail freedom of expression of the petitioner, foisted five criminal cases. Out of which, three cases viz. Cr.No.436 of 2020, Cr.No,666 of 2020 and

¶27

¶28

Cr.No.144 of 2022L were made ground cases for opening the rowdy sheet. it is stated that all the above cases lodged against the petitioner are solely for reporting above mentioned issues in Raj News Channel. The rowdy sheet was opened against the petitioner to shut his mouth and to refrain him from reporting general issues plaguing the society at large.

¶29

It is further submitted that the action of the police in opening the rowdy sheet is only to curtail the freedom of petitioner as Journalist and the same infringes his rights under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is neither a criminal nor indulged in any act of breach of public tranquility or public order. The power to open the rowdy sheet is being misutilized as a weapon to call the petitloner to the police station and abusing him before the public. The respondent No.2 opened the rowdy sheet against the petitioner in the year 2Ol7 during which time there were two cases pending against the petitioner and even after acquittal in the said cases, the police did not review the rowdy sheet.

¶30

In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.4, it is stated that the petitioner is involved in the following criminal cases:

¶31

Cr.No.77/20L7 for the offences U/s. 153, 153(4), 504 r/w 34 IPC of Kondurg Police Station.

¶32

¶33

Cr.No,436/2020 for the offences U/s. 186, 504 IpC & Section 67 IT Act 2000-2008 of Shadnagar police Station and the case is u nder investigation.

¶34

Cr.No.666/2020 for the offences U/s. 385, 447,506 r/w 34 tpc of Shadnagar Police Station. The charge sheet was filed before the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Shadnagar and CC nurriber is awaited.

¶35

4, Cr.No.L44/2021 for the offences Uls. 34f, 452, 5O4,5061pC of Shadnagar Police Station. The case is pending trial vide CC.No.486/2021 before the Hon,ble Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Shadnagar.

¶36

Cr.No.34l2021 for the offences U/s.186, 353,427, 504 r/w 34 IPC of Mahabubnagar Town police Station.

¶37

Learned Assistant Government pleader for Home submitted that the respondent No.2, Station House Officer, Shadnagar police Station, made a requisition to the respondent No.4, Assistant Commissioner of Police. Shadnagar Division, on 08.03.2021 stating that the petitioner is involved in criminal cases and disturbed peace and tranquility in the area. It is very essential to keep watch over his activities and proper check is needed on him and requested to accord permission to open the rowdy sheet against the petitioner. In turn, after enquiry, the respondent No.4 accorded permission on 04.04.202I for opening the rowdy sheet, The petitioner created nuisance in general public. Due to fear, nobody came forwarded to lodge complaint against the petitioner. Hence, retaining the rowdy sheet is essential to watch the activities of the petitioner.

¶38

¶39

The respondent No.2 followed due process of law and opened the rowdy sheet against the petitioner. The petitioner was involved in the above referred cases and created nuisance with general public and the allegation that the rowdy sheet is opened to curtail the petitioner's freedom as Journalist and freedom of press was denied.

¶40

In Cr.No.436 of 2O2O, the allegation against the petitioner is that he is spreading news against the police through whatsapp that Shadnagar police are taking photographs ind iscriminate ly of vehicles. which are going on road and sending challans to vehicle owners by taking advantage of rockdown, due to which vehicre owners are suffering to pay challans. In Cr.No.666 of 2020, the allegation is that the informant is constructing villas by developing open land in Ac.34.20 guntas and the accused persons including the petitioner, arrayed as 42, are demanding money from him and when he did not agree to their demand, they threatened him through messages and criminally trespassed into the above land, quarreled with the watchman and threatened him that they would file SC/ST case against him. In Cr.No.144 of 2O2t, the informant stated that he is working as a watchman in the Indoor Stadium ground, shadnagar for the rast four years. A shuttre court was opened in the year 2019 and the players have to follow certain rules to be allowed in the court. On 04.02.2O21. some players when

)

came to the shuttle court with normal shoes, which is not allowed, the informant went to them and stopped their game, but they did not listen to him. On the next day morning, when he went to clean the shuttle court, he found scratches on the mat. On 06.o;a.2021, one Srinivas (A1) came towards him and shouted and questioned as to who stopped the shuttle players and abused in filthy language and obstructed him and threatened him.

¶45

As seen from the above, Cr.No.436 of 2O2O and Cr.No.666 of 2020 relate to activlties of the petitioner as Journalist. So far as Cr.No.144 of 2O2l is concerned, the incident in minor in nature. It cannot be said that the petitioner involved in any act of breach of peace or tranquility. Though it cannot be said that the activities of the petitioner, as a Journalist/News Reporter, would never amount to committing offences involving breach of peace and public tranquility, it needs to be seen that there is no application of mind by the police before opening the rowdy sheet against the petitioner. Order No.601 of the^police Manual regulates the opening of rowdy sheet. Before an authority chooses to open a rowdy sheet against a person, the authority has to satishT itself as to under which of the categories, the rowdy sheet can be opened. The offences complained of against the petitioner are private in nature and they are against private individuars. There is no materiar to show that

public at large is in any way arfected due to the activities of the petitioner. Thus, the contention of the respondent No.4 that the petitioner is involved in offences causing breach of peace and public tranquility and that due procedure as per Order No.601 has been followed is without any basis. Hence, continuance of rowdy sheet against the petitioner is unsustainable.

¶50

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. pending

¶51

miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶52

//TRUE COPY//

¶53

SD/.T,KRISHNA KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (_!

¶54

SECTION OFFICER

¶55

To,

¶56

The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶57

The Station House Officer, Shadnagar Police Station, Cyberabad.

¶58

The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad.

¶59

f he Assistant Commissioner of Police, Shadnagar Division, Cyberabad.

¶60

One CC to Sri. V Raghunath, Advocate [OPUC]

¶61

Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶62

Two CD Copies.

¶63

PM Av-

HIGH COURT

DATED:2211212021

ORDER

WP.No.18970 of 2021

ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS.

¶69

-{EL
t2
a)'( ?
lJ .$
l- ou
\Iil
\ ()
o $<br>-
*
c tt c
a

¶70

f>-
(a,)
ft'
a
\ (,\ \ Iv'-

M. Satyanarayana Goud v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Satyanarayana Goud v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

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

Hyder Khan Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Zainulla Abedin Vs The State of Telangana rep., by its Principal Secretary

Sapasetti Venkata Sainath Vs State of Telangana

K.Venkatesham Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Pranita Agarwal Vs Union of India

Smt Regina Mary Vs Union of India