Allowed

P. David Raj v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC14 Dec 2023WP/27944/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court examined a writ petition challenging the illegality of a police rowdy sheet maintained against the petitioner despite no pending criminal cases. The court held that maintaining the sheet without valid reasons violated the petitioner's fundamental rights.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners rowdy sheet No. 338/ACP-PG/92 dated 20.02.1992 was directed to be closed.

P. David Raj Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF DECEI\4BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 27944 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

P. David Raj, S/o Abraham, Aged 48^years, Occ.^{Business,RJo H.No. 8-3-} 19414, Vengakao Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶9

...pETtrroNER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City,^Hyderabad.

¶13

The Assistant Commissioner of Police,^{Panjagutta Division, Hyderabad.}

¶14

The Station House Officer, Madhura Nagar^{Police Station, rd.lllt?to=*r.}

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of Ihe Constitution of^{lndia prayingthat in the}

¶16

circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filedtherewith,the High Court may be} pleased to issue an order, direction or Writ, more in the nature of a^{writ of} mandamus declaring that the action of respondents^{No. 2 to 4 in continuing rowdy} sheet against the petitioner bearing No.^{338/ACP-PG/92 dated 20.02.1992which} was transferred to respondent No.^{4 on 02 -06.2023from SR Nagar Policestation} as illegal, arbitrary, high handed^{and violative of the provisions of the A.P. Police} IVanual and Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the^{constitution of lndia and consequently} direct the respondents No,2 to⁴ to^{close the rowdy sheet bearingNo.338/ACP-} PGi92 dated 20.02.1992 which was transferred^{to respondent No- 4 on 02.06-2023}

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶18

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 suspend the operation of the rowdy sheet pursuant to bearing No. 338/ACp-pG/92 dated 20.02.'1992 which was transferred to respondent No. 4 on 02.06.2023

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T BALA MOHAN REDDY

¶20

Counsel for Respondents: GP FOR HOME

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTIC^{E C.V.BHASKAR REDDY}

¶24

WRIT PETITIoN No.27944 of²⁰²³

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This writ petition is frled seeking^{to declare the actionof respondent} Nos.2 to 4 in continuing^{the rowdysheet openedagainst the petitioner} bearing No.338/ACP-PGl92,^{dated 20.02.1992, whichwas transferredto} respondent No.4 on^{02.06.2023 from SR Nagar PoliceStation as illegal,} arbitrary and violative^{of Articles14 and 21 of the constitution of India} and to consequently direct^{respondent Nos.2 to 4 to close the rowdy} sheet opened against^{the petitioner.}

¶27

The case of the petitioner is^{that the policeof S.R.Nagar Police} Station had registered^{a case against him in crime No.762 of 2O2O for an} offence punishable under^{section 107 of cr.P.c which was ultimately} quashed by the Hon'ble High^{Court on l4-O8-2O23 and therewas} reference to the cases^{involved earlier by him namely(i) crimeNo.471 of} 199^{1; (ii) CrimeNo.2O2 of 1993 (iii) Crime No.360of 1993;(iv) Crime} No.242 of 1993 and^(v) Crime^{No. 15 of 1994and on the basis of the} same, S.R.Nagar^{Police sought to bind over him. It is the further caseof} the petitioner^{as againstthe aforesaidorder,which was quashedby this} Court, no^{appeals have been preferred by the Governmentand thusthe} said order^{has attainedfinality. Therefore, no crimes are pending against}

¶28

¶29

¶30

him in aly police station as on date. However, basing on the a,lleged offences, the respondents opened rowdy sheet against him. The main grievance of the petitioner is that even though there are no criminal cases pending against him, the respondents with a mala Jide intention are continuing the rowdy sheet and due to surveillance, he is facing much inconvenience and hardship to lead a respectable and dignihed life in the society.

¶31

A counter alhdavit has been frled respondent No.3 stating that the petitioner is of unlawful character and continuously induiging in the commission of lawless acts involving breach of public peace and tranquility. It is further stated that as per the available records, the petitioner was involved in the following crimes:

¶32

S.No	Crime No.and Sectionoflaw	PoliceStation	Stage
o1	CrimeNo.471of 7991, under Sections 747, ]44,448,427, 3O2r/w149of IPC	S.R.Nagar	Acquitted
o2	CrimeNo.2O2of 1992, under Sections147,148 and3O2ofIPC andSection27of IndialArmsAct	S.R.Nagar	Acquitted

¶33

'rt

¶34

¶35

03	CrimeNo.360of 1993, under Section5O6ofIPC	S. R.Nagar	Acquitted
o4	CrimeNo.242of 1993, under Section363ofIPC	BanjaraHills	Acquitted
o5	CrimeNo.15of 1994, under Sections 147, 148,427and323 r/w149 ofIPC	JubileeHills	Acquitted
o6	CrimeNo.762of 2O2O, under SectionIO7of Cr.P.C	S.R.Nagar	The petitioner hledaCrimina.l Petition uide
			Crl.P.No.7548of
			2023beforethis
			Court andthis
			court quashed
			CrimeNo.762of
			2O2O,byorder
			dated14.08.2023.

¶36

It is also stated that as per the^{proceeding of Assistant Commissioner of} Police, Panjagutta Division, Hyderabad, rowdy^{sheet has been opened} against the petitioner on the file of S.R.Nagar Police Station,^vide No.338/ACPPGl92 dated 20.O2.1992 ald the same is^{being maintained} against the petitioner. It is further stated that as on date,^{there are no} cases pending against the petitioner and to curb arld curtail the^unlaw{ul aftfirlties of the petitioner, a rowdy sheet was opened against him^to

rttr,

watch his movements from time to time in the public interest as per Standing Order No.601 of A.P. Police Manual. It is also stated that there is no case registered against the petitioner after closure of the aforesajd criminal cases.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as on date, 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 Biharz, in which, the Apex Court held that opening of rowdy sheet and continuing the same without any valid reason would not characteitze a person that he is habitua-lly involving in commission of offences.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgments in Sunkara Satyanarayana v. State of Andhra pradesh 3 ; 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

¶43

'^{,qR1963sc t295} '?em.^{198+ sc 13:+} ' :ooo1r') nto 1c.r.) r r7 (Ar)

¶44

o zooq(t) lto (ca.) 187 (Apr 5 rssrlzy a.Lt eo+ 6 tleulo; eto ssl

¶45

¶46

Puttagunta^{Pasi v. Commissionerof Police, Vijayawadaz' in which'} theDivisionBenchhasspecilrcallyobservedthatarowdysheetcouldnot be opened^{against an individualin a casual and mechanical manner and} duecareandcautionshouldbetakenbythepolicebeforecharacteizing a person^{as a rowdY.}

¶47

Learned counsel^{for the petitioner has placedmuch reliance on the} judgment in Yerramsetti^{Venugopal Rao v' State of AndhraPradesh} and others8,^{in which, the learned Single Judge of High Court of Andhra} Pradesh while^{referring to the Standing Orders of A'P' PoliceManual and} the principles^{laid down in the catena of judgments held that history} sheetofarowdycarrbecontinued(i)iftheactivitiesareprejudicialtothe maintenance^{of public order or affecting peace and tranquilityin the} area; ii)^{the victims are not coming forwardto give complaint against him} on account^{of threat from him.}

¶48

7 . It is apt to refer^{to the relevant Stalding Orders of A'P' Police} Malual.

¶49

MaintenanceofrowdysheetsisgovernedbyStandingorderNo'6o1 of A.P. Police^{Manual, Part-I, Volume II, whichreadsas under:}

¶50

'^{r998(3)ALT55 (DB)}

¶51

E zozdp;qt-o 1crt.) 1048 (AP)

¶52

¶53

"60 1 . The follotuing persons may be classif.ed as rowdies and Rotudg Sheets (Fonn 8O) may be opened for them under the orders of the SP/ DCP and ACP/ SDPO.

¶54

A. Persons u.tho habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences inuoluing a breach of the peace, disturbance to public order and secuitg.

¶55

B. Persons bound ouer under Sections 106, 1O7, 108(1) (i) and 1 10(e) and (g) of Cr.P.C.

¶56

C. Persons uho haue been conuicted more than once in tuo mnsecutiue years under sections 59 and 7O of the Hyderabad City Police Act or under section 3, clause 12, of the AP Touns Nuisances Act.

¶57

D. Persons uho habifually tease u)omen and girls and pass indecent remarks.

¶58

F. Persons uho intimidate bA thredts or use of phgsicaL uiolence or other unLauful means to part u.ttth mouable or immouable properties or in the habit of collecttng moneg bg ertorfion from shopkeepers, traders and other residents.

¶59

G. Persons who incite and instigate communal/ caste or political nbts.

¶60

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

¶61

[. Persons tuho are conuicted for olJences under the Representatiues of the Peoptes' Act for igging and carrying awag ballot poper, Boxes and other

¶62

polling material"'

¶63

¶64

g. The period of retention of^{historysheets of suspects/rowdiesis} governed by Standing order^{No.6O2 of A.P. Police Manual and the same} reads as follows:

¶65

"6O2-1. History^{Sheetsof suspects shallbe maintained} from^{the dote} of registration up to the^{end. of December,afteruthich the orders of a} gazetted officer as to their discontinuance^{or retentton} for^a further peiod shalt be obtained-

¶66

Merelg because a suspect/^{routdy, hnuing a history sheet, is not} ftguring^{as ctccused in the preuious5 yearsofier the lost case in} tthich he uas inuotued, it^{slnutd not precludetLrc SP/ DCP/ CPto} continue Lus history sleet if^{SP/ DCP/ CP is of the considered uiew} tllc:t his^{(lctiuitiesare prejudictalto the maintenonceof publicorder or} one affecting peace and^{tranquiltitgin the area or the uictimsare not} coming fortaard to^{giuecomplaintagainst him on account of threat} from^him."

¶67

g.StarrdingOrderNo.T42ofA.P.PoliceManualdealswiththe classifrcation of^{rowdies and openingof rowdy sheets and the same is} extracted below:

¶68

"742. Rotrdies^{- (1) fhe} fotlowing^{persotls mog be classifedas} rou..dies and Rou-tdg Sheets^{(Fonn 88) mag be opened} for^tlrcm under tle order of the^{Supeintendent of Police or Sub-diuisional} Officer:

¶69

(a) persons who habituatlg commit,^{attempt to commit or obetthe} commission of, of-fences inuoluing^{a breoch of the peace;}

(b) persons bound ouer under Sections 106, 1O7, 1O8(c) and. 1 1O(1) of the Code of Ciminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No.2 of 1974);

¶74

(c) persons uho haue been utnuicted more thon once in two consec tiue years under Section 75 of the Madras Citg police Act or under Section 3, clause 12, of the Tou.tns Nuisances Act;

¶75

(d) persons u?to habituallg tease Luomen and_ Erls by passing indecent remarks or othenttise; and

¶76

(e) in the case of rotudies residing in an orea und.er one police Station but are found to be freElentlg uisiting the area und.er one or more other Police Stations fircir routdg sheets can be maintained at all such Police Stations;

¶77

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

¶78

(2) Irustructions in Order 735 regarding d.iscontinuance of History Sheets shall also applg to Routdy Sheets."

¶79

In the present case, as per the counter-affidavit, there are no cases

¶80

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 a''y specific insta,ce of the petitioner's involvement in the commission of offence subsequent to the closure/acquittal of the crimina-l cases registered against him.

¶81

In view of the above and inasmuch as in catena of cases, the courts are consistently directing the police to maintain the rowdy sheet

¶82

¶83

¶84

as per the Stalding Orders of A.P. Police Manual, this Court is of the opinion that the action of the respondents police in maintaining^the rowdy sheet against the petitioner even though no case is^pending against him cannot be said to be^proper.

¶85

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 suffrcient 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.

¶86

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed.

¶87

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶88

SD/- N. CHANDRA^{SEKHAR RAO} T.SSISTANT \EGISTRAR ,rRUE CoPY/t V- SECTIOil^OFFICER

¶89

To, 1 The Principal^{Secretary, Home Department' State of Telangana' Secretariat'} Hvderabad.

¶90

, if,; 6;;issioner^{of Police' Hvderabad Citv' Hvrlerabad'} 3. The Assistant^{commrs#riJ; ;iP;i;;' P';j6gut1a Division' Hvderabad'} r,it:i'i.ti+*i.,m,xa'*1;te":+.;.;.p1!:fl :.I::;i::, 6. i;; 6c.'t"^{cp For Home' Highcourt for the stz}

¶91