Allowed

Somanaboina Ravinder Yadav v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC13 Dec 2023WP/26340/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition challenging the legality of a rowdy sheet against the petitioner. The Court held that maintaining a rowdy sheet based on a solitary pending case violates fundamental rights. It directed the police to close the rowdy sheet unless the petitioner commits a future crime.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondents-police to close the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner and observed that future action can be taken strictly per Standing Orders if sufficient material exists.

Somanaboina Ravinder Yadav Vs The State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁹⁶ ]

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRt JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION No: 26340 0F 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Somanaboina Ravinder Yadav, S/o Ganeshh, Age. 45 years, Occ. Aqrl. R:/o Kakkireni Village, Ramannapet Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District, TS.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, TS.

¶12

¶13

1. Assistant Commissioner of Police, Choutuppal Division, Rachakonmda police Commissionerate Yadadri Bhongir District.

¶14

S. Q!r9t9 lnspector of Police, Ramannapet Circle, Ramannapet, yadadri Bhongir District.

¶15

Station House Officer, PS Ramannapet, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Yadadri Bhongir District. TS.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the 2nd, and and 4th Respondents is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law for continuiflg the Rowdy Sheet on the Petitioner and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to delete Rowdy Sheet on the Petitioner in his office file.

¶18

lA 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

¶20

direct the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents not to call the petitioner to the police^- Station Ramannapet-

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI SEETHARAM REDDY KANCHARLA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2634O of 2o.23

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This writ petition is hled seeking to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in opening and continuing the rowdy sheet against the petitioner as illegal, arbitrar5r and contrar5r to law.

¶26

The case of the petitioner is that the police of Ramannapet Police Station, had registered three cases against him, namely (i) Crime No.57 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 447,427 and 307 read with 34 of I.P.C. and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet which was taken cognizance as S.C.No.8 of 2Ol7 on the file of the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhuvarragiri, which was ended in acquittal uide judgment, dated 28.06.2023; (iil Crime No.8O of 2Ol9 for the offences punishable under Sections 3O7 and 5O4 read with 34 of I.P.C. and after completion of investigation charge sheet was Iiled which was taken cognizance as S.C.No.126 of 2O2l on the file of the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,

¶27

¶28

CVBR, J w^p _26340 _2021

¶29

Bhuvanagiri, which is pending for trial and (iii) S.T.C.No.4 of 2023 for the offence punishable under Section 29O of I.P.C. and the same is pending. It is the further case of the petitioner that two criminal cases which are pending against were occurred in the agricultural land and it is not the public place and he never breached the public order and law and order as well. The main grievance of the petitioner is that even though there are no other criminal cases pending against him, except S.C.No.126 of 2021 which is pending for trial and S.T.C.No.q oi ZOZS which is pending for his examination, respondent No.2 with a mala fide^{intentionis continuing the rowdy} sheet and due^to surveillance, he is facing much inconvenience and hardship to lead a respectable and dignified life in the society.

¶30

A counter afhdavit has been filed by respondent No.2 stating inter alia that the petitioner was involved in the following criminal cases:-

¶31

(i) On the complaint of one Somanaboina Adinarayana, a case in Crime No.57 of 2016 was registered for the offences

¶32

¶33

CVBR, J Wp_26340_2023

¶34

r-\

¶35

punishable under Sections 447, 422 and 3O7 read with 34 of I.P.C. of Ramannapet Police Station and after completion of investigation charge sheet has been filed uide S.C.No.g of 2Ol7 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bhuvanagiri and the same has been ended in acquittal on 27.06.2023.

¶36

(ii) On the complaint of one Somanaboina Sudhar a case in Crime No.8O of 2O19 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 504 read with 34 of I.P.C. of Ramannapet Police Station and after completion of investigation charge sheet has been filed uid.e S.C.No.l26 of 2O2I and the same is pending for trial.

¶37

(iii) The petitioner has been bound over ui.d.e Crime No.98 of 2016 under Section 1lO (e) of Cr.P.C. on 18.07.2016. It is further stated that in view of 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 ..Ftgnding^{Order No.601 of A.P,Police Manual.It is also}

¶38

¶39

CVBR, J Wp_2634o_2023

¶40

stated that except maintaining the rowdy sheet against the petitioner, respondent No.2 did not take any coercive action in any manner. It is further stated that retaining the rowdy sheet is essentia_l to watch the activities of the petitioner and as such prayed this Hon,ble Court to dismiss the writ petition.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there are no cases pending against the petitioner except S.C.No. 126 of 2O2l arld S.T.C.No.4 of 2023 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 in othersr and Vijay Narain Singh v. State of "rh"rz, which, the Apex Court held that opening of rowdy sheet and continuing the same without aly valid reason would not characterize a person that he is habitualty involving in commission of offlences.

¶42

l,earned counsel for the petitioner has further relied on the judgments in Suntrara Satyanarayana v. State of

¶43

I an rgo: sc 1295 'aln^{tgtl sc t:3n}

¶44

¶45

CV8R, J wp_26340_2023

¶46

Aadhra Pradesh3; B. Satyanarayana Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesha; Majid Babu v. Government of Andhra Pradesh^s I Kamma Bapuji v. Station House Oflicer, Brahmasamudramo. He has further relied on the judgment ln Puttagunta Pasi v. Commissioner of Police, VijayawadaT, 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 and caution should be taken by the police before characterizing a person as a rowdy

¶47

l,earned counsel for the petitioner has placed much reliance on the judgment in Yerramsetti Venugopal Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh and otherst, in which, the Iearned 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

¶48

I zooo( r ) nLo (crt.) r l7 (AP) '^zoo+1r;nr-o 1ca.)^{387 (AP)}

¶49

'^{tsez(z)aLtgo4} u tosz16; nLD 5E3 '^{roeslry nLr ss} loey * -: 2o2o(2) ALD (crt.) lo48 (AP)

¶50

¶51

CVBR, J Wp_26340_2023

¶52

activities are^{prejudicial to the maintenance of public order} or affecting^{peaceald tranquility in the area; ii) the victims} are not coming forward^{to give complaint against him on} account of threat^{from him.}

¶53

7 . It is apt to refer to^{the relevant StandingOrders of} A.P. Police Manual.^{Maintenance ofrowdy sheets is} governed by Standing^{Order No'601 of A'P' Police Manual'} Part-l, Volume II,^{whichreads as under:}

¶54

"6O1. TLrc foltott-ting^{persons maybe classifiedo's rotudies} and Rowdg Sheets^{(Fortn8O) magbe opened} for^them under the orders of the^{SP/ DCP and ACP/SDPO'}

¶55

A. Persons who^{habituallg commit, attempt to} commit or abet the^{commissionofoffences} inuoluing a breach of tle^{peace, di-sturbanceto} public order and seanritg.

¶56

B. Persons bound ouer^{under Sections106'1O7,} 108(1) (4 ond^{110(e)and(g) of Cr.P.C.}

¶57

C. Persons tuho haue been^{conuictedmore than} once in tuto conseantiue^{gears un-der sections59} and 7O of the Hgderabad Citg Polie^{Act or unrler} section 3, clause 12, oI the AP Towns^Nuisances Act.

¶58

D. Persons uho habituallg teo.se u)oman and^girls and pass indecent remarks.

¶59

¶60

CVBR, -] Wp_26340_2023

¶61

¶62

F. Persons u-tho intimidate by threats or use of phystcal uiolence or other unlauful m-eans to parT uith mouable or immouable properties or in the habit of collecting moneg bg ertortion from shopkeepers, troders and other resid.ents.

¶63

G- Persons u-tho incite ond tnstigate communal/ caste or political iots.

¶64

Ff. Persons detained under the "AP Preuention of Dangerous Actiuities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Dntg Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Trafftc Offenders and l,and-Crabbers Act, 1986" for a peiod of 6 months or more

¶65

I. Person-s u.tho are conuicted. for offences under the Representatiues of the Peoples' Act for igging and carrying autag ballot paper, Boxes and other

¶66

polling mateial"'

¶67

The period of retention of history sheets of

¶68

suspects/rowdies is governed by Standing Order No.6O2 of

¶69

A.P. Police Manual and the sarne reads as follows

¶70

"602:1. History Steets of suspects shall be maintained from the date of registration up to the end of December, afier which the orders of a gozetted offtc*r as to their dtscontinuance or retention for a further period shall be obtained.

¶71

Merely because a suspect/ roudg, hauing a -^{-*ristorl sheet,is not rtWingas accusedin the} preuious 5 years after the last^case in uhich^he uas

¶72

¶73

CVBR, J wp_26340_2023

¶74

inuolued, it should not preclude the SP/ DCP/CP to continue his history sheet if SP/DCP/CP is oJ the considered uieu that his octiuities are pre1udicial to the maintenance of public order or one alfecting peace and tranquillitg in the area or the uictims are not coming fonuard to giue complaint against him on account of threat from him-"

¶75

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:

¶76

"742. Rowdies:- (1) The follotuing persons may be classifed as rou.tdies and Rowdg Sheets (Fortn 88) mag be opened for tlem under the ord.er of the Supeintend.ent of Police or Sub4ivisional Offcer:

¶77

(a) persons uho lnbitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of, offences inuoluing a breach of the peace;

¶78

(b) persons bound ouer under Sections 106, 1O7, 108(c) and 110(1) of the Code of Ciminal Proced.ure, 1973 (Act No.2 of 1974);

¶79

(c) persons who hnue been convicted more thon once in tuto con-seantiue gears under Section 75 of the Madras Citg Police Act or under Section 3, clause 12, of tle Touns Nuisances Act;

¶80

¶81

CVBR, J W^p _263ao_2023

¶82

(d) person-s u.tho habituallg teose women and girls by passing indecent remorks or othent_tise; and

¶83

(e) in the case of rou.tdies residing in an area under one Police Station but are found to be frequentlg^{uisiting the area under} one or^more other Police Starlons their roudA sheets can be maintained at all such Polie Stations,.

¶84

(G O. Ms. No. 656, Home (Police-D) Dept. Dt. 8-41971)

¶85

(2) Instructions in Order 735 regard.ing discontinuance of History Sheets shall aLso applg to Rowdg Sheets."

¶86

In the present case, as per the counter-affidavit, 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 public at large. Further, the respondents have not given any specific instance of the petitioner's involvement in the commission of offence subsequently.

¶87

¶88

CVBR, J W^p _26340_2023

¶89

1 I . 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 6O I of A.P.Police Manual.

¶90

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 as per the Standing Orders of A.P. Police 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 |a, 19(l )(g) and 2 1 of the Constitution of India.

¶91

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 sufficient material to establish that his movements are required to be prevented, the respondents-police are at liberty to take action against him strictly in accordance with the Standing Orders of A.p.

Police Manual.

{

CVBR, J w p _26340_2023

¶96

¶97