Allowed

Bantu Yadagiri v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC13 Dec 2023WP/24856/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana disposed of a writ petition seeking the closure of a rowdy sheet (history sheet) maintained against the petitioner. The Court held that without pending cases or evidence of habitual offending, the continuous maintenance of the sheet violated constitutional rights and police manual provisions, directing the respondent police to close it.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondents (police) to close the rowdy sheet (History Sheet/Rowdy Sheet) opened against the petitioner.

Bantu Yadagiri Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

I³²⁹⁶ l

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTII^{DAY OF DECEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{C.V.BHASKAR REDDY}

¶6

WRIT PET ITION NO: 24856^{OF 2023}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Bantu Yadagiri, S/o. Sidulu,^{Agedabout 32 yrs, Occ.F} ish Business, Ri/o. 6- 141 , Shabu Nagar, Miryalaguda^{Town, Nalgonda District}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 . The State of Telangana,^{Rep. by its Principal Secretary' Home Department,} BR Ambedkar Secretariat,^Hyderabad.

¶12

The Suoerintendent of^{Police, Nalgonda District.}

¶13

fne Sub Divisional Police^{Officer, tr/iryalguda, Nalgonda District'}

¶14

a. fne Circt" lnspector^{of Police, I Town-P.9., Miryalaguda'.Nalgonda District,}

¶15

The Station H6use^{Officer,I Town P.S., Miryalaguda' Nalgonda District'}

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article^{226 of the constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavitfiledtherewith, the High court maybe} pleased to issue a writ or order or^{Direction more particularlyone in the natureof} the writ of Mandamus^{to declare the action of Respondents No. 2 to 5 in opening} and continuing^{Historysheet / Rowdysheetagainstthe petitioneris illegal'} arbitrary and violation^{of principles of natural justice and violationof Articles 14'} 16, 19 and 21 of the^{constitution of lndia and contrary to the police standingorder} and consequently direct^{the respondents to closethe Historysheet / Ro\ dy sheet} against the^{petitiorrcr forthwith.}

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶19

Petitaon 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. 3 to 5 not to call the petitioner to aftend the I Town Police Station, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District pending disposal of the writ petition otherwise the petltioner would be put irreparable loss and harm.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.V.SUBBA REDDY Counsel forthe Respondents: AGP FOR HOME

¶21

The Court made the following: OROER

¶22

:-7

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUS TICE c.v.BHASI(AR REDDY WRIT PETITI ON No.24856 of 20.23

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:_

¶26

"...to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos.2 to S in opening and continuing History Sheet/Rowdy Sheet against the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14, tg (l) (e) and 2l of rhe Constitution of India and contrary to the police standing order..."

¶27

The case of the petitioner is that in view of registration of the criminal cases against him, a rowdy sheet/surveillance sheet has been maintained against him. The particulars of the cases which are registered against him are as under:-

¶28

sl. No	CrimeNo.&Police Station &C.C.No	Offences	Remarks
I	Cr.No.3l7 of2O15of MiryalagudaITown PoliceStation, C.C.No.257 of2Ot6	nderSection3S4of I.P.C.andSections3, 5 and 9 ofthe Telangana Money LendersAct U	Thecase ended acquittal 27.O9.2017 was in on
2	Cr.No.2lot2OL4ot MiryalagudaITown PoliceStation	UnderSection3OZ andSection25(l)(a) ofIndianArms Act	alreportfiled underSection 173ofCr.p.C.to referitas'false. Fin

¶29

!E --, -:4-1-_:

¶30

i I I

¶31

CVBR, J w p _24856 _2023

¶32

3	Cr.No.53/2017of Mirya-lagudaITown PoliceStation S.C.No. 162of20 17 LaterC-C.No.539 of 20la	UnderSections385 readwith34ofI.P.C. andSection3(1)(r) (a)ofthe SC/ST(POA) Act.	Theproceedings againsthimwere quashedbythis Court uide Crl.P.No.7699of 2Ol7and4312of 2023.
4	Cr.No.82of2O2Oof MiryalagudaITown PoliceStation S.C.No.52 ot 2021	UnderSection3O7 readwith34 ofIPC	The petitioner was acquittedon 2a.1o.202t

¶33

It is the further case of the petitioner that as on date no criminal cases are pending against him in any police station. The main grievance of the petitioner is that even though there are no other criminal cases pending against him, respondent No.5 with a mala Ttde intention is continuing the rowdy sheet and due to surveillance, he is facing much inconvenience and hardship to lead a respectable and dignified life in the societ5r.

¶34

A counter affidavit has been frled by respondent No.3 stating that the petitioner was involved in the following

¶35

cases:-

¶36

st. No.	Crime No.&Police Station &C.C.No.	Nameofthe Station	Police Remarks
I	Cr.No.3l7of2O15 UnderSectron384of I.P.C.andSections 3, 5 and 9 ofthe TelanganaMoney IrndersAct	MiryalagudaI Policestation	Town Acquitted 27.O9.2017	on

¶37

¶38

CVBR, J w p _24856 _2023

¶39

2	Cr.No.83of20f5 underSections448, 29O,427 and506 readwith34ofI.P.C.	Miryalaguda PoliceStation	IITown	Compromisedin LokAdalat
J	Cr.No.12ot 2014 UnderSection307 andSection25(l)(a) ofIndianArms Act	Miryalaguda PoliceStation	ITown	Compromised inLokAdalat
4	Cr.No.53/20I7 UnderSections383, 342and 323	Miryalaguda PoliceStation	ITown	Quashed r4.o7.2023 on
5	Cr.No.127of2Ol9 Undersections448, 324arld504ofI.P.C.	Vemulapalli Station	Police	Compromisedin LokAdalat
6	Cr.No.82of2O2O UnderSections307 readwith34ofI.P.C.	Miryalaguda PoliceStation	ITown	on Acquitted '28.rO.202r

¶40

It is further stated that in^view of the^{involvement of the} petitioner in the aforesaid cases and in order to curb^and curtail the unlawful activities of the^{petitioner, rowdy sheet} has been opened against the^{petitioner to watch his} movements from time to time in the^public interest^{as per} Standing Order No.6O I of A.P.Police Manual.^{It is also} stated that except maintaining the^{rowdy sheetagainst the} petitioner, respondent No.S did not take any mercive^action in any manner. It is further stated that retaining^the rowdy sheet is essential to watch the activities of the petitioner and as such prayed this Hon'ble Court to dismiss \ the writ petition.

a.,,

CVBR, J wp_24856_2023

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submittid that 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 othersr and Vijay Narain Singh v. State of ,16"rz, in which, the Apex Court held that opening of rowdy sheet and continuing the sarne without any valid reason would not characterize a person that he is habitually involving in commission of offences.

¶46

l,earned counsel for the petitioner has further relied on the judgments in Sunkara Satyanerayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh3; B. Satyanarayana Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesha; Majid Babu v. Governmeat of Andhra Pradesh^s ; Kamma Bapuji v. Station House Oflicer, Brahmasamudram6. He has further relied on the judgment in Puttagunta Pasi v. Commissioner of police,

¶47

'^{AIR tg63} sc l29s

¶48

2 etn tgEr sc t33+ IzooqrI^aro 1ca.)^{r t7 (Ap)}

¶49

' 2004( l) ALD (Crl. ) lE7 (Ap)

¶50

' r 987(2) ALT 904 ' r997(6) ALD 583

¶51

¶52

CVBfi, J Wp_24856_2023

¶53

Vijayawadaz, in which, the^{DivisionBenchhas specifically} observed that a rowdy sheet could not^{be opened against} an individual in a casual^{and mechanical manner and due} care and caution should^{be taken by the policebefore} characterizing a^{person as a rowdy.}

¶54

Learned counsel for the^{petitioner has placed much} reliance on the^{judgment in Yerramsetti VenugopalRao} v. State of Andhra Pradesh^{and othersE, 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^{peaceand tranquility in the area; ii) the victims} are not coming forward^{to give complaint againsthim on} account of threat^{from him.}

¶55

7 . It is apt to refer to the^{relevant StandingOrders of}

¶56

A.P. Police^Manual.

¶57

'^{rqga(l) aLrss (os)}

¶58

6 zozo{:) e.Lo (crt.) to48 (AP)

¶59

¶60

CVBR, J Wp_24856_2O23

¶61

Maintenance of rowdy sheets is governed by Standing Order No.6Ol of A.P. Police Manual, Part-I, Volume II,

¶62

which reads as under:

¶63

"6O1- The following persons mag be classified qs rowdies and Rowdg Sheets (Fonn 8O) mag be opened. for them under the orders of the SP/ DCP and ACP/ SDPO.

¶64

A. Persons who habituallg commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of olfences inwtuing a breach oJ the peace, disturbqnce to public order and. secuitg-

¶65

B. Persons bound ouer under Sections 106, 107, 108(1) (i) and 1 lo(e) and (g) of Cr.P.C.

¶66

C, Persons who ha ue been conuicted more than once in lLUo @n-secutiue gears under sections 59 and. 70 of the Hgd.erabarl CitA Police Act or under sectioa 3, clause 12, of the AP Touns Nuisances Act.

¶67

D. Persons uho habituallg tease utomen and gtrls and pass ind.ecent remarks.

¶68

F- Persons u,ho intimtdate bg threats or use of phgstcal violerrce or other unlawlul means to patt with movable or imtnouable properttes or in the habit of colLecting moneg bg extortion from shopkeepers, lraders and other residents.

¶69

G. Persons who incite and tLstigate communal/ caste or political riots.

¶70

H. Persons detained under the "AP Preuention oJ Dangerous Actiuities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Olfend.ers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and. Land-Grabbers Act, 1986" for a peiod of 6 months or more.

¶71

¶72

CVBR, J Wp _24a56_2023

¶73

L Persons uho are conuicted for oflences under the Representattues of the peoples' Act for igging and canying aruall ballot paper, Boxes and. olher polling tlatenal"'

¶74

9 The period of retention of history sheets of

¶75

suspects/ rowdies is governed by Standing Order No.6O2 of A.P. Police Manual and the same reads as follows:

¶76

"602-1. Hstory Sh_eerc of suspecrs sha be maintained from^{the date of registrotion} up to the end. of December, a,fter uhich the orders of a gazette<l officer as to their discontinuance or retention for a furlher period. shall be obtained.

¶77

2 . Merela because q suspect/ roudA, t&uing a history sheel, is not figuing as accused. in the previous S gears after the lcst cose in which he was inwlued, it should. not preclude the SP/ DCP/CP to continue his history sheet if SP/ DCP/ CP is of the considered vieut that his actiuities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public ord.er or one allecting peace and tranquillitA in the area or the victims qre not coming fonuord to giue conplaint against him on account of threat from him. "

¶78

Standing Order No.742 of A.p. police Manual deals with the classification of rowdies and opening of rowdy sheets and the same is extracted below:

¶79

"742. Rowdies:- (1) The following persons m<tg be classified as rowdies and. Rorudg Sheets (Form 8E) mag be opened for them und.er the order of the Superintendent of Police or Sub-diuisional Olficer:

¶80

¶81

CVBR, J Wp_24856_2023

¶82

(a) persons uho habituctltg commit, attempt to comnit or abet the commissron of, olfences irtuolvilg a breqch of the peace;

¶83

(b) persons bound ouer under Sections 106, tO7, 1O8(c) and 11O(1) of the Code oJ Crinirul Proced.ure, 1973 (Act No.2 of 1974);

¶84

(c) persons who have been conuicted more than once in two cnnseantiue Aears under Section 75 oJ the Madra.s City Police Act or under Section 3, clause 12, of the Towns Nuisances Act;

¶85

(d.) persons uho habitually tease uomen and girls bg passing indecent remarks or othenuise; and

¶86

(e) in lhe case of roudies residing in an <trea und.er one Police Station but are found to be frequentlg uisiting the area under one or more other police Stations their roud.g sheets can be maintained at all such Police Sra,ions,.

¶87

(O.O. Ms. No. 656, Home (potice-D) Dept. Dt. B-4_t97t)

¶88

(2) Instructions in Order 735 regard.ing discontinua nce oJ History Sheets sholl arso applg to Roudg Sheets."

¶89

In the present case, as per the counter-affidavit,

¶90

there a-re 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 public at large. Further, the respondents have not given

¶91

¶92

CVBR, J wp _24856_2023

¶93

any specilic instance of the petitioner's involvement in the commission of offence subsequently.

¶94

It is settled legal position that involvement of a person in a solitary criminal case is not sufficient to classify such a person as a habitual offender under Clause (A) of Standing Order 601 of A.P.Police Manual.

¶95

In view of the above settled legal position and inasmuch as the catena of cases are concerned, the Courts are consistently directing the police to maintain the rowdy sheet as per the Standing Orders of A.P. Police Manual, this Court has no hesitation in holding that 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)(9) and 2l of the Constitution of India.

¶96

Therefore, the respondents-police are directed to close the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner. It is needless to observe that if the petitioner involves in any crime in future and if there is any suflicient material to establish that his movements are required to be prevented,

¶97

¶98

CVBR, J wp_2a856_2023

¶99

the respondents-police are at liberty to take action^against him strictly in accordance with the Standing Orders^{of A.P}

¶100

Police Manual.

¶101

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶102

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall

¶103

stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶104

SD/- K. KUMARI ASSISTANT IS R

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

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

¶109

2 The Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda District. 3 The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Miryalguda, Nalgonda District. 4 The Circle lnspector of Police, I Town P.S., Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District, 5 The Station House Officer, I Town P.S., Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District. 6 One CC to SRI K.V.SUBBA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 7 Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

I Two CD Copies

PSK. GJP '}l-

HIGH COURT

DATED:13 11212023

ORDER

WP.No.24856 of 2023