Allowed

Kommineni Chaitanya Krishna v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC13 Oct 2023WP/21785/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking the closure of a history sheet opened against the petitioner for a solitary offence. The Court held that maintenance of such a sheet for a single case violates Constitutional provisions and standing orders, directing its closure.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to close the history sheet/suspect sheet opened against the petitioner.

Kommineni Chaitanya Krishna Vs State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32e61

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. V, BHASKAR REDOY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 21785 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kommineni Chaitanya Krishna, S/o KSN Prasad, Aged about 40^years, Rl/o H 1206 BRC lnfra Shiva Hills, Uppalaguda, Manikonda, *rd"rrOrO...."ET,,.NER

¶9

AND1. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶10

The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Gachibowli, Hyderabad.

¶11

The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Shamshabad Division, Cyberabad, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Station House Officer, Narsingi Police Station, Manikonda, Ranga Reddy District'

¶13

...RESP.NDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that^{in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Courtmay be} pleased to issue a Writ order or Direction more so, a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, by declaring the action of the respondentsⁱⁿ opening the history^sheet vide proceedings C.No.62lSHBADl2021, dated 25.11.2021 , conlrary^{to judgment} in Umesh Singania Vs. Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, where history^sheet cannot be open on slrength of solitary crime, as illegal, arbitrary, and^{infringing the} fundamental rights^guaranteed under Constitution of^{lndia and consequentiallyto} direct the 4th respondent to close the history sheet opened^{againstthe petitioner} herein.

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶15

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying thatⁱⁿ the circumstances^statedin the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High Court may be pleased To} direct the respondents to consider to close the^{history sheet opened by the 4th} respondent against the^petitioner in^{connection with the solitarycase} C.C.No.125i2'19 on the file of Xll Additional^{lVletropolitanMagistrate,Cyberebad,} during the pendency of the above writ^petition

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G. VASANTHA RAYUDU Counsel for Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Cburt made the following: ORDER

¶17

2;:.

¶18

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶19

WRIT PETITION No.21785 of 2023

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

This writ petition is frled seeking to declare the action of respondents in opening and continuing the history sheet against^the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and infringing the fundamental rights guaranteed under Constitution of India and to consequently direct respondent No.4 to close the history sheet opened against him.

¶22

The case of the petitioner is that he has been falsely implicated in Crime No.333 of 2O 18 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 2O(bxii)(A) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "the NDPS Act'), Section 3 read with 24 of TOPA Act, Section 76 of CP Act and Section 29O of IPC, on the file of Rajiv Gandhi International Airport Police Station, wherein charge sheet has been hled and the same has been taken cogrrizance vide C.C.No 125 of 2Ol9 on the hle of XII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendra Nagar, which is pending for trial. It is his further case that basing on the alleged solitary offence, respondent No.4 opened a history sheet against him vide proceedings C.No.62lSHBADl2O2l dated 25.11.2021. The main grievance of the petitioner is that even though there are no other criminal cases pending against him, except the aforesaid single case which is

¶23

¶24

¶25

pending for trial, respondent No.4 with a mala fde intention is continuing the history sheet and due to surveillance, he is facing much inconvenience and hardship to lead a respectabie and dignifred life in the society.

¶26

A counter affrdavit has been frled by the Inspector of police, Narsingi Police Station, respondent No.4 herein, stating tnter alia that as per the available records, the petitioner was involved in Cr.No.333 of 2018 registered for the offences punishable under Section 2O(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act on the file of Rajiv Gandhi International Airport police Station, Cyberabad and the case is pending trial vide C.C.No.125 of 20 19 before the Court of VIII Metropolital Magistrate, Rajendranagar. It is further stated that in view of involvement of the petitioner in the above criminal case, a suspect sheet has been opened against him on the file of Rajiv Gandhi International Airport Police Station, Cyberabad, as per the proceedings of respondent No.3 i.e., Assistalt Commissioner of police, Rajendranagar Division, HC Shamshabad Division, vide C.No.62ISHBAD/2021 dated 25. Il.2O2t. Subsequently, on the point of jurisdiction, the suspect sheet has been transferred to respondent No.4 for further surveillance on the petitioner as per Memo of Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, vide C.No.405/CCRB-HS/CYB/2022 dated 3O.O4.2O22 and the same is being maintained against the petitioner. It

¶27

¶28

¶29

is also stated that in^view of^{past record, it is necessaryto maintainthe} suspect sheet to keep close^{watch on the movements of the petitionerto} curb law and order problem. It is^{also stated that except opening and} maintaining the suspect sheet^{againstthe petitioner,the respondents} police did not harass, threaten or interfere^{with the life and libertyof the} petitioner much iess any coercive action has^{been taken in any manner.} It is further stated that in view of^{pendency of C.C.No.l2S of 2019,} retaining the suspect sheet is essentiai to^{watch the activities of the} petitioner and as such prayed this Hon'ble Court to dismiss^{the writ} petition.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted^{that excepta} solitary case which is^pending trial, there are^{no casespending against} the petitioner and therefore,^prayed to close the^{historysheet opened} against the petitioner. In support of his .submission,^{he has relied upon} the judgment in Kharak Singh v. State of^U.P. and^{othersrand Vijay} Narain Singh v. State of Bihar2, in which, the Apex Court held^that opening of rowdy sheet ald continuing the same without any^valid lreason^{would not characteizea person that he is habitually involving in} c\ommission o{offence s.

¶31

'^{AIR1963 sc1295}

¶32

'?atn^{lgaq sc t3:+}

¶33

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied on the judgments in Sunkara Satyanarayana v. State of Andhra pradesh3; B. Satyanarayana Reddy v. State of Andhra pradesha; Majid Babu v. Government of Andhra Pradeshs; Kamma Bapuji v. Station House Officer, Brahmasamudram6. He has further relied on the judgment in Puttaguata Pasi v. Commissioner of Police, Vijayawadaz, in which, the Division Bench has specifically observed that a rowdy sheet could not be opened against an individual in a casual and mechanical manner and due care arrd caution should be taken by the police before charac terizing a person as a rowdy.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed much relialce on the judgment in Yerramsetti Venugopal Rao v. State of Andhra pradesh and otherss, in which, the learned Single Judge of High Court of Andhra Pradesh while referring to the Standing Orders of A.P. police Manual and the principles laid down in the catena of judgments held that history sheet of a rowdy can be continued (i) if the activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or affecting peace and tralquility in the

¶36

r zlooir; nlo lcrl) I t7 (Ap) '^zdbal ry alo 1crr.) 387^(Ap) t Ietllz; nLT 9on u toeuiry aLo st: '^{reoall; alr ss} ioe; '^zozolzyalo 1ca.)^lo48(AP)

¶37

{ ./'

¶38

¶39

area; ii) the^{victimsare not coming forward to give complaint against him} on account of threat^{from him.}

¶40

T.ItisapttorefertotherelevantStandingordersofA.P.Police Malual.

¶41

Maintenance of^{rowdysheets is governed by Standing Order No'601} of A.P. Police^{Manual, Part-I, Volume II, r'vhich readsas under:}

¶42

"601. The follott-,ing^{personsmay be ctassifiedas rotudiesand Routdg} Sheets (Fonn^{80) maybe opened} for^{them under the orders of theSP/ DCP} and ACP/ SDPO.

¶43

A. Persons tuho habituatly^{commit, attemptto commit or obet the} cornmission of offences^{tnuoluing o breach of the peace,disturbance} to public order and^securitY.

¶44

B. Persons bound. ouer^{under Sectlons106, 1O7, 108(1) (i) and} I 1O(e) and^(g) o[^Cr.P.C.

¶45

C. Persons tuho^{haue been anuictedmore than once intu'to} consecl.ttiue^{years undersections 59 and 7O of the HyderabadCity}

¶46

Police Act or under^{section 3, clause 12, of tle AP Totuns Nuisances} Act

¶47

D. Persons tuho habttuattg^{teasewomenand girls andpass} indecent remarks.

¶48

F. Persons utho intimidote^{bg threatsor useof phgsical uioleneor} other untau-tful^{meansto part tuith mouableor immouable properties} or in the habit of^{coLtectingmoney by extortion} from^stnpkeepers, \ troder s snd oth<residents. \

¶49

¶50

L, Persons ulho incite and istigate communal/ caste or political riots

¶51

H. Persons detained under the "Ap preuention of Dangerous Actiuities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, C,oond.as, Immoral Traff.c Offenders and Lond-Grabbers Act, 19g6" for a period of 6 months or more-

¶52

L Persons u.tLa are conuicted for offences under the Representatiues of tLe Peoples' Acl for igging and carrying auag ballot paper, Boxes and otler

¶53

polling mateial,'

¶54

The period of retention of history sheets of suspects/rowdies is governed by starding order No.602 of A.p. police Manual and the same reads as follows:

¶55

"602-1. History Sheets of suspects shall be maintained. from the date of registration up to the end of December, afier rahich th.e orders of a gazetled officer as to th.eir dismntinuance or retention for a furtlter peiod stnll be obtained.

¶56

Merelg because a suspect/ rotudy, ltouing a history sheet, is not figunng^{os accttsed} in the preuious S years afier the last case in tohich Le u.tas inuolued, it slauld not preclude the Sp/DCp/Cp to continue his history sheet if Sp/DCp/Cp is of the cnnsid_ered" uieu.t that his actiuities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public ord.er or one affeding pbace and tranquillitg in the orea or tlu uictims are not aming foru.tard to giue complaint against him on account of tlreat fromhim."

¶57

\ \

¶58

¶59

Standing Order No.742 of A.P. Police Manual deals with the classifrcation of rowdies and opening of rowdy sheets and the same rs extracted below:

¶60

*742. Rou.tdies:- (1) The folloLaing persons mag be classified as roudtes and Rotudg Strcets (Form 88) mag be opened for them under the order of the Supeintendent of Police or Sub-diuisional Officer:

¶61

(a) persons tuho habituallg commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission oJ offences inuoluing a breach of the^peace;

¶62

(b) persons bound ouer under Sections 106, 107, 1O8(c) and 110(1) of the Code of Ciminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No.2 of 1974);

¶63

(c) persons uho haue been conuicted more than once in ttuo conseottiue years under Section 75 of the Madras Citg Police Act or under Sectiott 3, clause 12, of the I'owns Nuisances Act;

¶64

(d) persons u.tho habitually teose utomen and girls by passing indecent remorks or olhen ise; and

¶65

(e) in the case of rou.tdies residing tn an areo under one Police Station but are found to be frequently uisiting the areo under one or more other Police Slations tlrcir roLadg sheets can be maintained at all such Police Stations;

¶66

(G.O Ms. No. 656, Home (Police-D) Dept. Dt. 8-4-1971)

¶67

(2) Instructions in Order 735 regarding discontinuane of History SLeets shall also apply to Rotudg Sheets."

¶68

In the present case, as per the coun ter-affidavit, except the solitary

¶69

case which is pending for trial, there are no cases pending against the petitioner as on date to maintain the history sheet/suspect sheet or to

¶70

¶71

¶72

keep surveillance on the activities of the petitioner in any manner. However, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner is a habitual offender and there is every possib,ity of threat to the public at large' Further, the respondents have not given any specirrc instance of the petitioner's involvement in the commission of offence subsequently.

¶73

11' It is settled legal position that involvement of a person in a soritary criminal case is not sufficient to classi$r such a person as a habitual offender under clause (A) of Standing order 60 I of A.p.police Manual.

¶74

In view of the above settled legal position and inasmuch as in catena of cases, the Courts are consistently directing the police to maintain the rowdy sheet/suspect sheet/history sheet as per the standing orders of A.p' police Manuar, this court has no hesitation in holding that the opening of the history sheet/ suspect sheet in the name of the petitioner and continuance of the same thereaJter is in violation of Articles la, 19(1)(g) and 2l of the Constitution of India.

¶75

Therefore, the respondents police are directed to close the history sheet/suspect sheet opened against the petitioner. It is needless to observe that if the petitioner involves in any crime in future and if there is a,y sufficient materiar to establish that his movements are required to be prevented, the respondents police are at libert5r to take action against

¶76

¶77

¶78

him strictly in accordance with the Standing Orders of A.P. Police

¶79

Malual.

¶80

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allorved.

¶81

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶82

There shall be no order as to costs.