Allowed

Syed Qutubuddin v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Dec 2023WP/24478/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that maintaining a rowdy sheet against an individual based solely on a solitary pending criminal case violates Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed directing the closure of the rowdy sheet.

What did the court decide?

The respondent police were directed to close the rowdy sheet maintained against the petitioner.

Syed Qutubuddin Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s6 ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:24478 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Syed Qutubuddin, S/o.Syed .^{Shafiddin,Aged. 29 years,Occ} : Electrician. Rt/o H.No.1 7 l1 131 5fi I 4tB-A. Awatst Nagar, Santosh Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶9

.....PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 It^SJl:_qf Tetangana, Rep by irs principat Secrerary For Home uepanment, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Commissioner of.police,, Hyderabad Commissionerate, Command Control, Banjarahills, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Deputy Commissioner of police, South Zone, purani Haveli, Hyderabad.

¶14

The lnspector of police, police Station Rein Bazar, Hyderabad.

¶15

The lnspector of police, police Station Santosh Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶16

.....RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition Under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particurarly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus decraring the action of the Respondent No.4 and 5 in opening and maintaining rowdy sheet against the petitioners as ilregar, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 19 (1) (e) and 21 of the constitution of lndia. consequenfly direct the Respondent No-s to crose the rowdy sheet which has been maintaining against the petitioner.

¶18

|.A.NO:1 OF 2023

¶19

Petition Under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to direct the Respondent No.5 not to insist for the^presence of^petitioner in the Police Station Santosh Nagar, Hyderabad in connection with the rowdy sheet maintained against him pending disposal of the writ^petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI MOHD MUZAFFER ULLAH KHAN

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents : AGP FOR HOME

¶22

The Court made the following ORDER

¶23

TIIE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{C.V.BHASKARREDDY}

¶24

WRIT PETITION^{No.24478 of 2023}

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This writ petition is frled^{seekingto declarethe action of respondent} Nos.4 and 5 in opening and^{continuing the rowdy sheet against the} petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and^{violative of Articles la, 19(1Xg)and 2l} of the Constitution of India^{and to consequentlydirect respondent No 5} to close the rowdy^{sheet openedagainst him at SantoshNagar Police} Station, Hyderabad.

¶27

The petitioner claims to^{be a permanent resident of Hyderabad'It} is his case that in the^{year 2O2O tlrLe StationHor'.rse Officer' P'S Rein} Bazar has registered a^{case in Cr.No.l7B of 2O2Oagainst him for the} offences punishable^{underSections324, 355, 365, 384' 385' 5O4r/w 34} of IPC wherein the^{petitionerhas been arrayed as accusedNo' 1 and} subsequently, the^{ReinBazar Police filed charge sheet beforethe VIII} Additional Chief Metropolitan^{Magistrate, Nampally'Hyderabaduide} C.C.No. 1418 2 of 2O2I,^{which is pending for adjudication' It is his further} case that basing on^{the alleged solitary offence,Rein Bazar Police opened} a rowdy sheet against^{him and subsequentlyin ttre year 2O2l' it has} been transferred to Santosh^{NagarPolice Station' respondent No'S} herein. The main grievance^{of the petitioner is that even though there are}

¶28

¶29

no other criminal cases pending against him, except the aforesaid singte case which is pending trial, respondent No.5 with a mala fide intention is continuing the rowdy sheet and due to surveillance, he is facing much inconvenience and hardship to read a respectabre and dignified tife in the socrety.

¶30

A counter afhdavit has been frled by the Inspector of police, Santosh Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad, respondent No,5 herein stating inter alia that the petitioner is of unlawful character and he is continuously indulging in the commission of lawless acts involving breach of pubric peace and tranquility. It is further stated that the petitioner rvas involved in cr.No. r7g of 2o2o for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 35S, 365, 384, 3gS, SO4, 506 read with Section 34 IPC, u.hich is pending trial uide C.C.No.l4lg2 of 2O21 before the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Narnpally, Hyderabad ald the petitioner has been bound over on 23.03 .2O2 1 under Section 1 O7 of Cr.P.C by respondent No.4 and on 73.02.2023 uide MC No.B.S8Z of 2o23 under Section I l0 (e) of Cr.p.C by respondent No.S. It is further stated that the petitioner was involved in a petty case uid.e HYD2348PC232B0B7s3 under Section 70 (B) of C.p.Act, dated O2.O9.2O23 by respondent No.S. It is further stated that in viBw of involvement of the petitioner in the above criminal cases, in order to curb

¶31

¶32

and curtail the unlawful activities of the petitioner, as per^the proceedings issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mirchowk Division, the rowdy sheet has been opened against the petitioner^on Oa.Og.2O2O on the file of Rein Bazar Police Station, Hyderabad.^Sincethe petitioner shifted his residence from the limits of Rein Bazar^Police Station, rowdy sheet has been transferred to respondent No.5^{as per the} proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South^Zone, Hyderabad, vide Memo No.HS-4/SZ/2457/2021, dated ll.O7.2O2l^and since then respondent No.5 is maintaining the rowdy sheet^againstthe petitioner as per Standing Order No.601 of A.P.Police Manual. Reference has also been made to the Circular issued by the Director^{General of} Police, Hyderabad, vide C.No.2l72/C13lSCRB/CIDI^lS/22^dated 22.07.2022 which prescribes the^procedure for^{opening and continuing} the rowdy sheets against the habitual offenders.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted^{that except a} solitary case which is pending trial, there are^{no cases pending against} the petitioner and therefore, prayed to close the^{rowdy sheet opened} against the petitioner. In support of his submission,^{he has relied upon} the^judgment in Kharak Singh v. State of^{U.P. and othersl and Vijay}

¶34

I AIR t96l sc 1295

¶35

¶36

Narain Singh v. State of Bihar2, in which, the Apex Court held that opening of rowdy sheet and continuing the same without any valid reason would not characterize a person that he is habitualry invorving in commission of offences.

¶37

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 frouse Officer, Brahmasamudram6. He has further relied on the judgment in Puttagunta Pasi v. Commissioner of police, Vijayawadaz, in which, the Division Bench has specifically observed that a rowdy sheet could not be opened against ar-r individual in a casuai a,d mechanical rnanner and due care and caution should be taken by the police before characterizing a person as a rowdy.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed much reliance on the judgment in Yerramsetti venugopal Rao v. state of Andhra pradesh and otherse, in which, the learned Single Judge of High Court of Andhra

¶39

'AIR^{198+sc t:l,t} 'zooolt;^nLo 1c.t.) n?(AI,l n zooat t) eLo tc a.) 187 l Ap) ' r987(2) AtT 904 o r997( 6) ALD 58l ' I998(l) ALI lfuDB) "^2U20€ r nLDrc[rf)o+s (.rp r

¶40

¶41

Pradesh while relerring^{to the Standing Orders of A'P' PoliceManual and} the principles laid down^{in the catenaof judgments held that history} sheet of a rowdy can^{be continued (i) if the activities are prejudicialto the} maintenance of public^{order or affectingpeaceand tranquilityin the} area; ii) the victims^{are not coming forward to give complaint againsthim} on account of threat^{from him.}

¶42

It is aPt to refer^{to the relevantStanding Orders of A' P' Police} Manual.

¶43

Maintenance^{of rowdy sheets is governed by Standing OrderNo'601} of A.P. Police^{Manual, Part-I,Volume II, which readsas under:}

¶44

"601 -^'l-he follotuing^{personsmag be clossifiedas roudies and Routdg} Sheets^{(Fortnao)maA be opened} for^{them underthe ordersoJ the SP/ DCP} ond ACP/^SDPO.

¶45

A. Persons who^{habituatlycomnit,attempt to commit or obet the} commission of^{offencesirunluinga breach of the peace' disturbance} to public order and^seanitg'

¶46

B. Persons^{bound.ouer under Sections106' 1O7' 108(1) (i) and} 1 1 O(e) arud^{(g) of Cr-P.C.}

¶47

C- Persons uho^{haue been conuicted more tflanonce intttLo} conseottiue Aears^{under sections 59 ond 7O of the Hyderabad Citg} PoliceActorundersection3,clanlse12,oftheAPTounsJVuisances Act

¶48

u.nmen and^{girls and Pass} D. Persons tuho^{habituallY tease} indecent remarks,

¶49

¶50

F. Persons u.tho inttmid.ate bA threats or use of phgsical uiolence or other unlauful mean_s lo parl u.tith mouable or immouable properties or in the habit of coltecting moneA bg ertordon frorn shopkeepers, traders and other residents.

¶51

G. Persons tulut incite and instigate communal/ caste or political riots.

¶52

.FL Persons rietainecl under the .Ap preuentton of Dangerous Actiuilies of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Dntg Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic offenders and Lancr-Grabbers Act, 1986, for a peiod of 6 months or more.

¶53

L Persorzs utho are conuicter) for offences under the Represerutatiues of the Peoples' Act for igging and arrying atuag ballot paper, Boxes and other

¶54

polling material"'

¶55

The period of retention of history sheets of suspects/rowdies is governed by Standing Order No.6O2 of A.p Police Manual and the same reads as follows:

¶56

"6O2-1. History Sheets of suspects shall be maintained. from the date of regtstrotion up to the end of December, after u.thich the orders of a gazetted olftcer es to their discontinuance or retention Jor a fitrther peiod shalt be obtained.

¶57

Merety because a. suspect/ roudy, hauing a history sh.eet, is rlot _figunng as accused in the t w hi ch he utas in uo r ued,,r':;:::^" :::;f";:^::X;;;': ": continue his history sheet if Sp/DCp/Cp is of the consid.ered. aieu.t tLnt lus actiuities are prejuclicial to the maintenance of public ord.er or one affecting peace and tranquiuity in the area or the uictims are not

¶58

¶59

coming fonard to^{gtuecornplaintagainst him on accourttof threat} from^{him. "}

¶60

9 Standing Order No.742 of A.P.^{Police Manual deals with the} classihcation of rowdies and^{opening of rowdy sheetsand the same rs} extracted below:

¶61

"742. Routdies:-^{(1) The} follotuing^{persons may be dassifiedas} rowr)ies and Roudg^{Sheets(Form 88) mog be opened Jor them} under the order of^{the Supeintendentof Police or Sub-diuisional} Officer:

¶62

(a) persons tuho habituatlg^{commit,ottempt to commit or abet the} cornmission of, offences^{inuoluing a breach of the peace;}

¶63

(b) persons bound ouer^{under Sections 106, 107,1O8(c)and} 1 10(1) of the Code of^{Ciminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No'2of 1974);}

¶64

(c) persons tuho haue^{been anuictedmore tlanonce in tLUo} conseattiue years^{und.er Section75 of the MadrasCitg PoliceAct} or under Section 3,^{clause 12, oJ the TounsNuisancesAct;}

¶65

(d) persons wln habitually^{teosewomen and'girls bg passing} indecent remarks^{or otherutise;and}

¶66

(e) in the case of^{rowdies residing in an area underone Police} Station but are found^{to be} Jreqtentlg^{uisiting the area under one} or rLore other^{PoliceStations their roudgsheetscan be} maintained at all^{such PoliceStations;}

¶67

(G O. Ms. No. 656,^{Home(Potice-D)Dept' Dt' 8-4-1971)}

¶68

(2) Instructions in Order^{735 regarding disantinuanceof History} Sheet-s shall also^{applyto Rowdy Sheets'"}

¶69

¶70

In the present case, as per the counter affrdavit, except the solitary case which is pending trial, there are no cases pending against the petitioner as on date to maintain the rowdy sheet or to 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 possibility of threat to the pubtic at large. Further, the respondents have not given any specihc instance of the petitioner,s involvement in the commission of offence subsequently.

¶71

It is settled legal position that involvement of a person in a solitary criminal case is not sufrrcient to classify such a person as a habituar offender under clause (A) of Standing order 60 I ol-A.p.police Manual.

¶72

In view of the above settled legal position and inasmuch as in catena of cases, the Courts are consistently d irecting the police to maintain the rowdy sheet as per the standing (Jrders of A.p. porice Manual, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the opening of the rowdy sheet in the name of the petitioner and continuance of the same thereafter is in violation of Articles la, 19(1)(g) and, 2r of the constitution of India.

¶73

Therefore, the respondents police are directed to close the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner. It is needless to observe that if the

¶74

¶75

petitioner involves in any crime in future and if there is any suflicient material to establish that his movements are required to be prevented, the respondents police are at libert5z to take action against him strictly in accordance with the Standing Orders of A.p. police Manual.

¶76

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed.

¶77

Miscella,eous applications, if any pending, shalr stand crosed.

¶78

There shall be no order as to costs_

¶79

¶80

ASSrsfilftG,RESSFRXfl

//TRUE COPY/'

SECT]ON OFFICER

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

¶85

The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad Commissionerate, Command Control, Banjarahills. Hyderabad.

¶86

The Deputy Commissioner of Police, South Zone, purani Haveli, Hyderabad. 4. The lnspector of Police, Police Station Rein Bazar, Hyderabad.^'

¶87

The lns-pector of Police. Police Station Santosh Nagai, Hyderabad.

¶88

Two CCs to GP For Home, High Court for the State-of Teiangana at

¶89

Hyderabad. [OUTI

¶90

One CC to Sri Mohd Muzaffer Uttah Khan, Advocate tOpUCI

¶91

Two CD Copies

GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:1211212023

ORDER

WP.No.24478 of 2023

1 yrE ST4 7 e
d lo JAI'I zoz{ C)
* OgSPATCHr-! *

¶99

ALLOWING THE W.P

¶100

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶101

I\ -wflrh-*

Syed Qutubuddin v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Qutubuddin v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syed Saeed Mohiuddin Aasim Vs State of Telangana

Dargupally Jayender Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Yerram alias Arram Laxmi Vs Sri Pale Maruthi Prasad

Ajmira Lakhupati Vs The State of Telangana

Gopi Transport Vs State of Telangana

Iqubal Chakkanaparambil Vs The State of Telangana