Allowed

Mohd. Anwaruddin , Abbu v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC18 Jan 2023WP/31737/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment holds that continuing a suspect sheet against a petitioner who has been acquitted in all criminal cases and faces no pending charges is illegal. The court ruled that 'habitual offender' implies persistent repetitive criminal conduct, and since the petitioner's cases ended in acquittal, the sheet must be closed.

What did the court decide?

The suspect sheet opened against the petitioner vide C.No.528/1WMC-DVN/2013 and consequential proceedings vide C.No.1728(1)/OW/ACPAPC-DVN/2013 were quashed and the petitioner was directed to be releas

Mohd. Anwaruddin , Abbu Vs The State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

t³¹⁶⁸ l

¶2

HIGH COURT^{FORTHESTATE OFTELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(SPecial Originat Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY.THE^{EIGHTEENTH DAYOF JANUARY} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYTHREE PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^K.LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITI ON NO:^{31 737oF 2022}

¶6

Between:

¶7

Mohd' Anwaruddin @^{Abbu,S/o. Mohd.Mazharuddin,occ. Driver, tUo H. No.20-6-21,} Ghajibanda,^{Syedali-habutra,Shahlibanda, Hyderabad.}

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

I. The State ofTelangana,^{Representedby its secretary, Home Department, secretariat,} Hvderabad.

¶11

The Commissioner of^{Police' Hyderabad.}

¶12

i. The Deputy^{Commissionerof PAlice,(SouthZ-o-n$,Hyderabad'}

¶13

The Staiion^{HouseOfficer, PS, Shahalibanda,Hyderabad'}

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article^{226 of the constitutionof India praying that in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavit filed therewith, the HighCourt may be pleased to} issue a Writ or order/s^{more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus} Jeclaring the action of^{theRespondentsin continuingthesuspect sheetagainstthe} petitionJr, as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutiQnal^{and violativeof Article 2l of} Constitution of^{India urt .onr"qu"ntlydirect theRespondentsto close thesuspectsheet} opened against^{the Petitioner.}

¶16

IA NO: 1 0F 2022

¶17

Petition under Section^{151cPCpraying that in the circumstances stated in the} affidavit filed in^{support of the petition, the High court may be pleasedto direct the} Respondents not to^{interfere with the day to day activities of the Petitioner.}

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶19

SRI. V VENKATA^MAYUR

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents:^{GP FOR HOME(TG)}

¶21

The Court made the^following:

¶22

) /.

¶23

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{K. LAKSHMAN}

¶24

WRIT PETITION N o.³¹⁷³⁷ 0F²⁰²²

¶25

o RDER:

¶26

The present Writ Petition^{is filed by the petitioner under Article} - 226 of the Constitution^{of India seeking to issue a Writ of} Mandamus declaring^{the actionof the respondents in continuingthe} suspect sheet against^{the petitioner as illegal and unconstitutional and} for a consequential^{directionto the respondentsto closethe suspect} sheet opened against^{the petitioner.}

¶27

Heard Mr. V.^{VenkataMayur,leamed counsel for the} petitioner and learned^{Assistant Govemment Pleaderfor Home} appearing on behalf^{of the respondents.}

¶28

The contentions^{ofthe petitionerare as under:}

¶29

fi) At present, he^{is workingas Driver to eke out his} livelihood'

¶30

(ii) While he was working in^{GoldShop, the Police} had registered^{various crimes against him' The}

¶31

details of the same^{are as follows:}

¶32

¶33

K!..J W.P Na 317-17 ol)022

¶34

No I^r,	Crime/C.C./S.C Number I	NameolP.S.iCoun	;.,.*-	fil. Result
0l	C.C.No.773l20l0 (Cr.No.l4110of CharinakaP.S.,llyd.	Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,Hyd.	182rPC	lnceuinot
02.	S.C.No.364/201I (Cr.No.38/10of Saidabad P.S., Hyd.	V Addl.Metropolitan SessionsJudge, Hyd.	382& 3srrPC	-do- I I
03.	S.C.No.455/2012 (Cr.No.69/l0 of MalakpetP,S., Hyd.	TheSpl.Judgefor Economic offences-cum- VIIIAMSJ H d	-182.354& I20BIPC	-do-
04.	C.C.No.l48/2010 (Cr.Nos.I09 &. 201/10ofNampally P,S.. Hyd,	XIIACMM.Hyd	382IPC	-do-
05	S.C.No.586/201I (Cr.No.l93l10of Saidabad P.S., Hyd.	VAMSJ,Hyd.	182&3s4rPC	-do-
	C.C.No.I921201I
06	(Cr.No.glll0 of MadannapetP.S., Hvd.	VIIACMM,Hyd	382rPCI	-do-
07.	C.C.No.344i20lI (Cr.No.z-s3l10of Saidabad P.S., Hyd.	VII ACMM,Hyd.	382tPC	-do- Il
08,	C.C.No.555/201I (Cr.No.l09/10 Moghalpura Hvd. of oc	VlllACMIM,H),d	J82IPC	-do'
09.	C.C.No.I06/201I (Cr.No.l45l10of SantoshnagarP.S., Hvd.	VIIACMM,Hyd	I 382IPC I	-oo-
r0	C.C.No.640/20l0 (Cr.No.l42l10of MoghalpuraP.S., Hvd.	VIllACMM,Hyd. I	382tPC l	-do-
I1	C.C.No, 108/20II (Cr.No.l77li0of SantoshnagarP.S., Hyd	VIIACMM,Hyd	382IPC	-do-
t2	C.C.No.102/201I (Cr.No.l78l10of SantoshnagarP.S., Hld	VIIACMM.Hvd	382IPC I	-do-
t3.	S.C.No.406/2012 (Cr.No.405/i0of MalakpetP.S., Hyd.	The Spl.Judgefor Economic Offences-VIII MSJ,Hyd.	382 3s4&t20B IPC	-do-
	C.C.No.77512010
t4	(Cr.No.l62110of BahadurpuraP.S., Hvd.	CMM,Hyd.	382IPC	do-

¶35

¶36

KL,J W P No.3l?37 oI2D2

¶37

¶38

(iii) The petitioner was acquitted in^{all the aforesaid}

¶39

fourteen^{(14) crimes, and no case is pending}

¶40

against him.

¶41

(iv) Further, after 2011, no^{case is registeredagainst} the petitioner^herein.

¶42

(v) Despite the petitioner ended^{in acquiualin all the} aforesaid cases,^{the respondents are still continuing} the susPect sheet^{against him.}

¶43

(vi) In view of the above, continuing^{of rowdy sheet} against the^{petitioner is illegal.}

¶44

(vii1 A person should be a habitual^{offenderfor the} purpose of opening and^{maintaining of rowdy}

¶45

sheet, and the^{petitioner is not habitualoffender'}

¶46

(viii) Placed reliance on the^{principle laid down by a}

¶47

Division Bench^{of High Court of AndhraPradesh} at Hyderabad in^{B. Safyanatay^n^ Reddyv'}

¶48

State of Andhra^Pradeshr.

¶49

2004(l){ALD^(Crl )387^(AP) l 1

¶50

¶51

¶52

Kt...l
W.P.lJo.3l7.17 o12022

¶53

With the said submissions, leamed counsel for the^{petitionersought to}

¶54

declare the action of the respondents in continuing the suspect^sheet against the petitioner as illegal and for a consequential^{direction to} close the above said suspect sheet opened against the^petitioner.

¶55

The contentions of respondents as per the counter affidavit

¶56

filed by respondent No.3 are as under:

¶57

(i) The petitioner herein is young, energetic and unlawful character locally and continuously indulging in the commission of^lawless acts involving breach of public peace and tranquility and involved in the aforesaid fourteen⁽ l4) crimes.

¶58

(ii) In view of the involvement of the petitioner in the aforesaid fourteen (14) crimes, it has become necessary on the^part of police to open a suspect sheet against him to keep watch on his activities and to curtail unlawful activities.

¶59

(iii) After obtaining permission from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Falaknuma Division, Hyderabad vide C.No.528/lW/MC-

¶60

D\rN/2013, dated 2l .07.2013, the suspect sheet^{hasbeen opened}

¶61

)

¶62

KL,J tr.P.No.3l737 ol²⁰²²

¶63

against the^{petitioner on the file of Station House Officer'} Moghalpura^{Police Station, Hyderabad'}

¶64

iv) Thereafter,^{on the point ofjurisdiction,the suspect sheet has been} transferred^{pursuantto the proceedingsof the Assistant} Commissioner^{of Police,FalaknumaDivision' Hyderabad' vide} C.No.¹ 72^{8( I} )/OWACPMC-D\rN/20^{I 3, dated 20'12'2013'}

¶65

v) In support^{of the same, the learned AssistantGovernment} Pleader for^{Homehas relied on the. decisionin Mohd' Sadiq} Shareef v.^{State of Telangana2'He has also relied upon the} decisions in^{Dhanji Ram Sharma v' Superintendentof} Police, North^{District, Delhi Police3and Vijay Narain Singh} v. State of^Bihara.

¶66

With the said^{submissions, the learnedAssistantGovemment Pleader} lor Home sought^{to dismiss the presentwrit petition'}

¶67

5.Inviewofthesaidrivalsubmissions,itisopttorefertothe

¶68

relevant clauses of^{the A'P. Police Manual'Maintenanceof Rowdy}

¶69

20r9 (l) ALT²⁸³ AIR [966 SC¹⁷⁶⁶ AIR [p84 sc ti]4

¶70

¶71

¶72

KI,,J U'.P.tto 31737 o12021

¶73

Sheets is govemed by police Standing Order 601 of the A.p. police

¶74

Manual, Part-I, Volume II, which reads as under:_

¶75

"601. The following persons may be classified as rowdies and Rowdy Sheets (Form g0) may bc opened for them under the orders of the Sp/DCp uni aCplSOpO.

¶76

A. Persons who habitually commit, attempr to commit or abet the commission of olfences involving a breach of the peace, disturbance to public or.der and security.

¶77

B. Persons bound over under Sections 106, 107, 108(l) (i) and I l0(e) and (g) of Cr.p.C.

¶78

C. Persons who have been convicted more than once in two consecutive years under sections 59 and 70 of the Hyderabad City police Act or under section 3, clause 12, of the Ap Towns Nuisances Act.

¶79

D. Persons who habitually tease women and girls and pass indecent remarks.

¶80

E. Persons who intimidate by threats or use of physical violence or other unlawful means to part with movable or immovable properties or in the habit of collecting money by extortion from shopkeepers, traders and other residents.

¶81

F. Persons who incite and instigate communal/caste or political riots.

KLJ tr.P.No 31737^{of 2022}

¶86

C. Persons^{detained under the "AP Preventionof} Dangerous Activities^{of Bootleggers, Dacoits'} Drug Offenders,^{Goondas,ImmoralTrafhc} Offenders and^{Land-GrabbersAct, 1986"fora} period of 6 months^{or more.}

¶87

H. Persons^{who are convictedfor offencesunder} the Representatives^{of the Peoples'Act for} rigging and^{carrying away ballot paper, Boxes} and other Polling^material."

¶88

Likewise,^{the period of retentionof history sheets of}

¶89

suspects / rowdies^{is govemedby Standing Order602' which reads as} fo llows:-

¶90

"602-1 . History^{Sheetsof suspectsshall be maintained} from the date^{ol registration up to the endof December'} after which the orders^{of a gazetted olficer as to their} discontinuance^{or retentionfor a further period shallbe} obtained.

¶91

Merely because^{a suspect/rowdy,having a history} sheet, is not^{figuringas accusedin the previous 5 years} alter the last^{case in whichhe was involved,it should} not preclude^{the SP/DCP/CP to continuehis history} sheet il SP/DCP/CP^{is ol the consideredview that his} activities are^{prejudicialto the maintenanceof public} order or one^{affectingpeace and tranquillity in the area}

¶92

¶93

¶94

KL,J
tr.P.No.3l737 o!202)

¶95

or the victims are not coming^{forward to give complaint} against him on account ofthreat^{frorn hirn."}

¶96

Standing Order⁷⁴² of A.P'^{Police Standing Orders deals} with situation as to classification of^{rowdies and openingof rowdy} sheets, which is extracted below:-

¶97

"742. Rowdies:- ( I ) The following persons may be classified as rowdies and Rowdy Sheets^{(Form 88)} may be opened for them under^{the order of the} Superintendent of Police or Sub-divisional^Officer:

¶98

a) persons who habitually^{commit,attemptto} commit or abet the commission^{of, ol'fences} involving a breach of the^peace;

¶99

b) persons bound over under^{Sections106, 107,} 108(c) and ll0(l) of the Code of^Criminal Procedure, 1973^(Act No.2 ol^1974);

¶100

c) persons who have been^{convicted morethan} once in two consecutive^{yearsunderSection} 75 of the Madras City Police^{Act pr under} Section 3, clause 12, of the^{TownsNuisances} Actl

¶101

d) persons who habitually^{tease women andgirls} by passing indecent remarks^{or otherwise;and}

¶102

e) in the case of rowdies^{residingin an area} under one Police Station^{but are found to be}

¶103

I;w

¶104

¶105

KL,J lY.P.No.3l737 of2022

F i,

frequently visiting the area^{under one or more} other Police Stations their^{rowdysheets can be} maintained at all such^{Police Stations;} (G.O. Ms. No. 656, Home (Police'D) Dept' Dt. 8-4- l97l )

¶110

(2) lnstructions in Order 735^regarding discontinuance of^{HistorySheetsshall also apply to} Rowdy Sheets."

¶111

According to the^{respondents,the petitioner was involvedin}

¶112

various crimes, and^{the details of whichare shownin the aforesaid}

¶113

tabular form, and^{in order to curb and curtailthe petitioner's unlawful} activities, they are^{maintaining the suspectsheet againstthe petitioner} to watch his movements^{from time to time.}

¶114

As per Standing^{Order 601 of the A.P'Police Manual,rowdy}

¶115

sheet can be maintained^{against persons who habitually commitor} attempt to commit or^{abet the commissionof offencesinvolvinga} breach ofpeace,^{disturbanceto public order and security'}

¶116

Refuting the^{same,the leamedcounsel for the petitioner}

¶117

would submit that all^{the aforesaid fourteen (14) crimes have ended in} acquittal and that^{thereare no crimes pendingagainst him' Even then'}

¶118

¶119

¶120

KL.J W.P.No.3l7J7 of2022

¶121

as per the Police Manual, if a single crime^{is pending, opening of a} rowdy sheet against any person is illegal.

¶122

I L The Apex Court had an occasion to deal^{with the opening} of history sheets, continuation of^{the same and also right to privacyin} Kharak Singh v. The State of U.P.s.^{In the said case, rowdy sheet} was opened against the petitioner therein and^{the same was continued.} Under the guise ofsurveillance, the^police started^{visiting the house of} the petitioner therein against whom the ror.ydy sheet^wasopenedand pending during night hours and they used to torture the^petitioner. The Apex Court declared that the domiciliary^{visits at night hours are} unconstitutional.

¶123

t2 In Vijay Narain Singha, a three Judge^{Bench of the} Apex Court had an occasion to deal^{with the expression'habitually'} and held that the expression 'habitually' would mean^{'repeatedly'or} 'persistently' implying a thread of continuity,^{stringingtogether} similar repetitive acts, and a single act or^{omission wouldnot} characterize as an act of 'habitual'.^The Apex^{Court was of the} opinion that to^qualify asa 'habit', a person must have^grown

¶124

'.^{Atn rg63 sc tzgs}

¶125

¶126

¶127

KL'J W.P.No.Jl737^o12022

¶128

accustomed^{to leading a life of crime, whereby it wouldbe a force of} habit, inherent^{or latent,in an individualwith a criminal instinct'with} a criminal^{disposition of mind, that makeshim as dangerous to society} in general.

¶129

In Dhanji^{Ram Sharmas, a threeJudgeBench of the} Apex Court^{held that the conditionprecedentfor openingof a history} sheet is that^{such personshould be reasonably believed to be} habitually addicted^{to a crime or to be an aider or abettor of crime'In} order to^{justifo the opening of a history sheet' the Hon'ble Supreme} Court opined^{that the police officer must have a reasonablebelief} based on^{reasonable grounds.}

¶130

In Sunkara^{Satyanarayanav' State ofAndhra Pradesh6} a leamed Single^{Judge was concemedwith the maintenanceof history} sheets/rowd1'^{sheets for considerably longperiods of time and held} that the same^{wouldnot onlyviolate the right of privacybut alsoother} fundamental^{rights of such personsunder Articles - 14 and 19 of the} constitution^{of India.orders for opening or retention of history} .n\tsirowd,v^{sheets should be passed under administrative} ".^{2ooo(t ) At.D (crl.)I l7 (AP)}

¶131

¶132

¶133

KI.,J ll/.P.lo.3l73t o1202!

¶134

instructions and guidelines and if such orders are challenged, the competent authority has to place the reasons before the Court justifl,ing the opening/retention of such history sheets/rowdy sheets. It would be better for the police officer concemed to record his own reasons for opening/retention of history sheets/rowdy sheets.

¶135

In B. Satyanarayana Reddyr, a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad held, that the involvement of a person in a solitary casd would not be enough to classify such person as 'habitually' committing offences. With the said finding, the Division Bench held that solitary instance in which the appellant therein was alleged to be involved in could not constitute the basis to classify him as a 'Rowdy.'

¶136

In Majid Babu v. Government of A.P.7, it was held that rowdy sheet could not be opened against an individual in a casual and mechanical manner and due care and caution should be taken bv the police before characterizing a person as a rowdy.

'.^{ts8l1z;eLteo,t}

KL.J U/ P No.3^{t737 af2022}

¶141

¶142

Station^{HouseOfficer'} 17. In^KammaBaPuji 8 wherein^{the persons in whose namerowdy} Brahmasamudram sheets^{were oPenedwere involved in two cases'but theYwele} acquitted^{in both, it was soughtto be contended on behalfof the police} authorities^{that the rowdy sheetswere openedduring the pendency of} the cases^{and that the acquittal therein wouldbe of no consequence} thereafter.^{While dealing with the said facts of the said case'the} learned^{Judgerejected the said contentionand held that rowdy sheets} could^{not be opened in a casual and mechanical manner and a person} could^{not be dubbeda 'habitualoffender' merely because he was} involved^{in two criminalcases'}

¶143

ln^{Puttagunta Pasi v'CommissionerofPolice'} Vijayawadae'^{a DivisionBenchconfirmed'the said principle holding} that a^{rowdysheet couldnot be openedagainst an individual in a} casual^{and mechanical manner' due careand caution should be taken} by the^{policebefore characterizinga personas a rowdy' The Division} Bench^{expressed agreementwith the viewtaken by the leamed Single}

¶144

E. 1997 (6) Ar.D 583

¶145

q. reesp) ALT 55 (DB) I

¶146

¶147

KI, J h'P.N0.31737 at:0i)

¶148

Judge in Kamma^{Bapuji8 that figuringas an accusedin two crimes} would not be sufficient^{to categorizea person as a'habitualoffender'.}

¶149

In Mohammed Quadeer^{v. Commissioner of Police,} Hyderabadr0 it^{was held that the A.P' Police Standing Orderswere} not statutory in^{nature and were only a compilation of govemment} orders issued from^{time to time, and that the Manualdid not invest the} police officers with any^{powers of arrest, detention, investigationof} crimes etc., not specifically^{conferred underthe Codeof Criminal} Procedure, 1973, or^{other enactments. As regards retention of a} rowdy sheet, it^{was held that openingof a rowdy sheet against a} citizen was undoubtedly^{fraughtwith seriousconsequencesand the} right to reputation under^{Article21 of the constitutioncouldnot be} deprived except^{in accordancewith the procedure establishedby law.} The law which authorizes^{the police to openRowdySheetsand} exercise surveillance^{would have to be verystrictly construed'}

¶150

In Yerramsetti^{Venugopal Rao v. State of Andhra}

¶151

Pradeshrr, a learned^{SingleJudge of the High Court of Andhra}

¶152

'0.^tee913;auooo

¶153

".^{2uaoq)ALD (Crl.) lo48(AP)}

¶154

¶155

KL,J W.P.No.3l737 of2022

¶156

¶157

Pradesh at Amaravathi, referring to the above said provisions of the A.P. Police Manual and the principles laid down in the above said judgments held that the history sheet ofa rowdy can be continued (i) if his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or affecting peace and tranquility in the area; and (ii) the victims are not coming forward to give complaint against him on account of threat lrom him

¶158

In Sadath Ali v. The Commissioner of Police, Twin Cities, Hyderabad12 by referring to the above said provisions of the A.P. Police Manual and also the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgments, a leamed Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, held that the requirement of involvement in at least more than two cases for inferring that he was a habitual offender was not established. The opening of the rowdy sheet in the name of the petitioner therein was therefore tainted in law in its very inception, Therefore, continuation of the said rowdy sheet by the police authorities ignoring the law laid down by this Court as well as the Supreme Court cannot be sustained.

¶159

'2.^{W,P.No.l9l9.tof 2012,decided on24.08.2015} ) \

¶160

¶161

r.L'J w.P.No.3l73? o1202?

¶162

Accordingly, with^{the said finding, the respondentstherein were} directed to close^{the rowdy sheetbeing maintainedin the name of the} petitioner therein.

¶163

lnM.Laxman^{v. State of Telangana13,a leamed Judge of} this Court, after^{referring to the principle laid down by the Apex Court} in Vijay Narain Singha^{and also referringto the Police Standing} Orders supra, it^{was heldthat it is permissibleto the police to open a} rowdy sheet if^{potice are of the view that, the petitioneris habitually} committing offences/abetting^{commissionof offenceinvolvingbreach} ofpeace, disturbance^{to the public order and security. In the said case,} the petitioner was^{involved in five casesand he has been facing trial in} the said cases. Referring^{to the said facts, it was heldthat, it cannotbe} said that the action^{of the police in openingrowdy sheetamounts to} abuse or misuse of^{powerand authority,and cannot be said that one} made in illegal exercise^{of power and withoutapplicationof mind'}

¶164

In Kadri^{RanadheerKumar v. PrincipalSecretary'} was Home Department,^{Hyderabadra,whereinthe petitioner}

¶165

P.N o.18364 of2020,^{decided on 03.12.2020} P.N o.12845 of20l4, decided^{on 27.09.2019}

¶166

¶167

l'7

¶168

KL.J W.P No.31737 ol2022

¶169

involved in only one^{case for the offence under Section 302 read with} Section 34 of^{the IPC and by relyingon the principleslaid downby} the Apex Court^{and this Court in catenae of decisions, a leamedJudge} ofthis Court held^{that the opening ofrowdy sheet and continuation of} the same thereafter^{was in violation of the life and libertyas} guaranteed to the^{petitioner therein under the provisions of the} Constitution of^{India as well as contrary to the law laid down by this} Court and the Apex^Court.

¶170

Following the^{above said principle, this Courtalso ordered} for the closure of^{rowdy sheet in MansoorShah Khan v. The State} of Telangana rep.by^{its PrincipalSecretaryHome Department'} Hyderabadrs.

¶171

Leamed Assistant^{Govemment Pleaderfor Home placed} reliance on the^{principlelaid down by the MadrasHigh Court in} G.RamanAliasRamachandranv.TheSuperintendentofPolice'

¶172

Karur Districtr6.^{In the said case, it was held that in the public} interest, the Police^{have got a right to disseminate information,}

¶173

''.^{w.dNo.22980 of 2020, decided on 01.06.2021} 'u.20t1crt.t.t.ttn6

¶174

¶175

¶176

. Nl'.J lY.P.No.3l737^{oJ 2022}

¶177

conceming law^{and order,and the crime.Displayor publicationof a} photograph of a History Sheeted^{Rowdy may be continuedto infringe} upon a person's^{right, in so far as it affectshis identity, reputation in} the minds of others,^{but at the same time,publicinterestwouldprevail} over^private interest.^{Referring to the same, the learned Assistant} Covernment^{Pleader would submit that the respondentshaverightly} opened the suspect^{sheetagainst the petitioner and is continuingthe} same in the interest^{of public.According to him,thereis no illegality'}

¶178

In view of the^{law, laid down by this Court and the Apex} court in the above^{saidjudgments,coming to the facts of the case on} hand, as discussed^{supra,fourteen (14) crimes were registered against} the petitioner^{and out of them,nine (09) cases were acquittedby the} date of opening of^{suspect sheet, and only five (05) caseswere} pending against the^{petitioner hereinand later the same were also} ended in acquittal.^{The offences alleged in the said five (05)cases are} under Sections^{- 382 and 354 oflPC. out ofthe said five (05) cases,} two (02) cases^{were ended in acquittal in the year 2015 andanother} one in the^{year 2022.}

¶179

¶180

KL,J tY.P.No.3l737 o12022

¶181

¶182

As stated above,^{as per StandingOrder 601 of the A'P'} Police Manual, for opening^{and maintenanceof rowdysheet, a person} against whom the same^{was issued should habitually commit,attempt} to commit or abet the^{commission of offencesinvolving a breach of} peace, disturbance to^public order^{and security.Further,as held by} the Apex Court in Vijay Narain^{Singha, the expression'habitually'} would mean 'repeatedly' or^{'persistently'implying a thread of} continuity, stringing together^{similarrepetitiveacts, and a single act or} omission would not characterize^{as a 'habitual''The Apex Courtwas} of the opinion that^{to qualifyas a 'habit', a person must have grown} accustomed to^{leading a life of crime,whereby it would be a force of} habit, inherent or latent,^{in an individualwith a criminal instinct, with} a criminal disposition^{of mind, that makes him dangerousto society in} general.

¶183

As held in^{YerramsettiVenugopal'Raoll,rowdysheet} can be continued⁽ⁱ⁾ if^{his activitiesare prejudicial to the maintenance} of public order or^{affectingpeace and tranquilityin the area;and (ii)} the victims are not coming^{forward to give complaintagainst him on} account of threat from him.^{The said groundsare lacking in the}

¶184

¶185

¶186

kt..J l/.P.No.317.17 ot2022

¶187

present case. Though in all the aforesaid^{cases,allegationsare serious} in nature, the petitioner was acquitted.^{Therefore,continuation of the} said 'ro,,vdy sheet' by^{the police authorities against the petitioners} ignoring the lav; laid down^{by this Court es well as the Apex Court in} thejudgments cited supra cannot^{be sustained.}

¶188

For the foregoing discussion,^{the present Writ Petition is} allowed, and the proceedings of^{the Assistant Commissionerof Police,} Falaknuma Division, Hyderabad^{vide C'No.528/IWMC-DVN/2013'} dated21.07.2013 opening suspect^{sheet against the petitioner herein} and the consequential^{proceedings C.No'1728(l)/OW/ACPA4C-} DVN/2013, dated 20.12.2013^{are herebyquashed. The respondents} are directed to close the suspect^{sheetagainst the petitionerherein} However, there shall be no order^{as to costs.}

¶189

As a sequel, miscellaneous^petitions, if^{any, pendingin the writ}

¶190

petition shall stand c losed.

¶191

SD/-L.SHIVA PARVATHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

/iTRUE COPYII

)-/ SECTION OFFICER

To,

l. The S:cretary, Home^Department, Secretariat, State ofTelangana, Hyderabad. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, (South Zone). llvderabad. 4. The Station House Officer,^pS, Shahalibanda, Hydiratiad. 5. One CC to SRL V VENKATA MAyURAdvoiate [OpUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME (TG) ,High Courr for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies

HIGH COUR'I

KL, J

DATED:^1810112023

ORDER

WP.No. 31737^{ot 2022}

¶201

1 HE ST,qT
i' L
+
o.J-) 24 JAN ?tP3
'r 0-
'. ;'
\ ( - -'<br>-.1-':;;1,^;;.- --i-ji _ .
'-,:::--1.--'''