Allowed

Bobbali Shankar Reddy v. The State of Telengana

Telangana HC19 Mar 2024WP/2749/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that maintaining a rowdy sheet against the petitioner after his acquittal in criminal cases, without pending investigations or threat to public order, violated fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution, directing police to close it immediately.

What did the court decide?

The respondent-police are directed to close the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner immediately. Miscellaneous petitions pending shall stand closed.

Bobbali Shankar Reddy Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGA.NA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF IVARCH

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 2749 OF 2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

Bobbali Shankar Reddy, S/o. Laxma Reddy, Age. 48 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Gundrampally Village, Chityal lvlandal, Nalgonda District.

¶10

,..PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telengana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Depa(ment of Home, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

2 The Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District.

¶14

J The Station House Officer, I Town Police Station, Nalgonda. 4 The Station House Officer, Chityala Police Station, Chityala, Nalgonda District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constrtution 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 A/ANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondent No. 3 and 4 in opening and continuing rowdy sheet against the Petitioner even after acquittal of the Petitioner in S.C. No. 191 of 2019 on the file of Prl. Sessions Judge, Nalgonda vide Judgment dated. 3O-04-2O2O against Cr. No. 258 of 2010 as being illegal, arbitrary, unco n stitutiona l, unwarranted and contrary to police Standing Orders No. 601 of Police I,4anual.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶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 direct the 4th respondent not to threaten the^petitioner by frequently calling to police station, pending disposal of the above writ petitlon.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. ANNAPURNA SREERAM

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR HOME

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

"x7

¶23

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶24

WRIT PETITION No. 2749 of2024

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is hled by the petitioner, seeking the following relief:

¶27

". . . to issue a writ, order or direction more particutarlg one in the nature of utrit of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondent No. 3 and 4 in opening and continuing routdg sheet ogainst the Petitioner even afier ac4uitial of the Petitioner in S. C- No. 191 of 2019 on the fiIe of Prl. Sessions Judge, Nalgonda uide Judgment dated: 30 04 2020 agatst Cr. No. 258 of 2010 as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstttutional, unwaranted and contrary to Police Standing Orders No. 60l of Police Manual..,"

¶28

The case of the petitioner is that after five years of registration of Crime No.258 of 2010 on the hle of respondent No.3, he was charge sheeted' as Accused No.S in the said Crime, basing on the confessional statement made by Accused No.2. It is further case of the petitioner that the said case was committed to the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Nalgonda and tried as Sessions Case No. i 9 1 of 2Ol9 and after full-fledged trial, the said Sessions Case ended in acquittal vide^judgment dated 3O.O4.2O2O. It is further case of the petitioner that as on date, no crimes are pending against him in any police station. However, basing on the alleged offences, the respondents opened rowdy sheet against him. The main grievance of the petitioner is that even though there are no criminal cases

¶29

¶30

¶31

pending against him, the respondents u,itin a mala fdru intention are continuing the rowdy sheet and due to surveillanc<:, he is facing much inconvenience and hardship to lead a respectabk: and dignified life in the society.

¶32

A counter affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 was filed by the Sub-Divisional Police Offircer, Nalgonda, stating that as the petitioner u,as involved in Crime No.258/2010 registered for the offences under Sections 1208, 3O2, 2Ol , 1O9 IPC on the file of respondent No.3, a suspect sheet was opened against him on 22.09.2015 and on the point of jurisdiction, the same was transferred to the respondent No.4. It is further stated rhat since the petitioner is very young and active, a close watch over his movements is required and hence the rowdy sheet opened against him is continued from time to time by conducting periodical rcviews and the same is renewed upto 31.72.2024.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submittr;d that as on date, there are no cases pending against the petitioner:rnd therefore, prayed to close the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the^judgment in Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. and othersl and Vijay Narain Singh

¶34

'^{atR t96:sc lz95}

¶35

¶36

v. State of Bihar2, in which, the Hon'ble Apex Court^{held that} opening of rowdy sheet and continuing the same^without any^valid reason would not characterize a person that he is habitually involving in commission of offences. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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 House Oflicer, Brahmasamudrata6. He has further relied on the^judgment in Puttagunta Pasi v. Commissioner of Police, VijayawadaT, in which, the Division Bench has specifically observed that a rowdy sheet could not to 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. The Iearned counsel for the petitioner has placed much reliance on the^judgment in Yerramsetti Venugopal

¶37

Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others8, 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

¶38

'^{nIRl98asc l33a}

¶39

'zooo(r)^{aLo(crl.)l r7 (AP)}

¶40

o zoo+lly aLo lcrr-) 387 (AP)

¶41

5 teszlzy ar-t eoa

¶42

6 1997(6) ALD 5El

¶43

' 1998(1) ALT 55 (DB)

¶44

'^{202014 aLD} 1crl.)^{lo4s (Ap)}

¶45

"ffi

¶46

¶47

continued (i) il the activities arc prejudicial to thc maintenance of public order or alfecting peace and tranquility in the area; ii) the victims are not coming forward to give complaint against him on account of threat from him.

¶48

It is apt to refer to the relevant Standing Orders of A.P. Police Manual. Maintenance of rowdy sheets is governed by Standing Order No.601 of A.P. Pohce Manual, Part-I, Volume II, u'hich reads as under:

¶49

'601. The followtng persons may be classiJied as roLod[es and Rorudg Sheets (Fonn 80) mag be opened for them under the orders of the SP/ DCP and ACP/ SDPO.

¶50

A. Persons uho habituatlg commit, attempt to commit or obet the commission of offences inuoluing a breach of the peace, dislurbance to public order and seanritA.

¶51

B. Persons bound ouer und.er Sections 106, 107, 108(1) (i) alrd 11O(e) ard (g) of Cr.P.C.

¶52

C. Persons u.tho haue been conutcted more than once in tu,o cottsecutiue gears under sections 59 and 7O oJ the Hgderabad CitA Police Act or under section 3, clause 12, of the AP Towns ,Vuisances Acl.

¶53

D. Persons u,ho hctbituqLtA teose u)omen and gir[s <znd pa.ss Lndecent remarks.

¶54

F. Persons wlrc intimid.ate bg threats or use of phgsical uolence or other unlanufuL means to part with mouable or imntouctble properli<'s or in the habit of cottecting moneg bg extortion from shopkeepers, trcTders and other residents.

¶55

G. Persons uho incite and instigate communal/ caste or polittcal riots.

¶56

H. Persons detqrned under the "AP Preuention of Dangerous Actiuities of EbotkggsTs, Docoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immu ol Traffic Offenders ancl Land-Grqbbers Act, 1986" for a penod of 6 .arcnths or more.

¶57

¶58

I. Persons uho are conuicted Jor offences under the Representatiues of the Peoples' Act for rigging and carrytng auag ballot paper, Boxes and other polLing material"'

¶59

The period of retention of history sheets of suspects/ rowdies is governed by Standing Order No.602 of A.P. Police Manual and the same reads as follows:

¶60

"602-1. History Steets of suspects shall be maintained from the date of regtstration up to th.e end oJ December, after utlLich the orders of a gazetted oJficer as to their discontinuonce or retention for a furth.er peiod shall be obtained.

¶61

Merelg because a suspect/ rowdg, having a history sheet, is not figvrtng^{as acatsed in thepreuious5 gears afierthe lo,st case in which} he was inuolued, it should nol preclude the SP/ DCP/CP to continue his history sh.eet if SP/ DCP/ CP is of th.e considered uieu th<tt his crctiuities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or one affecting peace and tranquiLtitg in the^qrea or the uictims are not coming fonard to giue compLaint against him on dccount of threot from him. "

¶62

Standing Order No.742 of A.P. Police Manual deals with the

¶63

classification of rowdies and opening of rowdy sheets and the same is

¶64

extracted below:

¶65

"742. Roudies:⁽¹⁾ The follorting persons moA be classified as rowdies and Rouldg Sheets (Form 88) mag be opened for them under the order of the Supertntendent of Police or Sub-diutsional Officer:

¶66

(a) persons who lnbituaLlg commit, attempt to commit or abet tfLe commission oJ olfences inuolving a breach of the peace;

¶67

(b) persons bound ouer under Sections 106, 1O7, 1O8(c) and 11O(1)ofthe Code of Cimtnal Procedure, 1973 (Act No.2 of 1974);

¶68

¶69

¶70

(c) persotts who haue been conuicted more than once in ttuo consecutiue gears under Section 75 of the Madras Citg Police Act or under Section 3, clause 1 2 , of the Towns Nuisances Act;

¶71

(d) persons uho habituallg tease u)omen and girls bg passtrtg indecent remarks or otherwise; and

¶72

(e) in the case of routdies restding tn an area under one Polta; Station but are found to be. Irequ"entlA uisiting the area under one or more other Poltce Stetions tlrcir roudV sheets can be maintatned at oLl such Police Slallons;

¶73

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

¶74

(2) Instructions [n Order 735 regarding discontinuance of History Sheets shall also applg to Rotudg Sheets."

¶75

In the present case, there are no cases pencling against the petitioner as on date to maintain the rowdy shect. or to keep surveillance on the activities of the petitioner in any manner. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner is a hatritual 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 subsequent to the closure / acquittal of the criminal cases registered against him.

¶76

In view of the above settled legal position and inasmuch as in catena of cases, the Courts are consistentty 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

¶77

¶78

same thereafter is in violation of Articles 1+, tO(t)(g) and 2l of the Constitution of India.

¶79

1O. 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.

¶80

I 1. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed.

¶81

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

¶82

stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶83

SD/- K.SREERAMA MU THY ASSISTANT REGI RAR

¶84

//TRUE COPY//

¶85

SECTION OFFICER