Allowed

Surakanti Anupa Reddy v. The State of Telengana

Telangana HC19 Mar 2024WP/2750/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging continuation of a rowdy sheet against a petitioner acquitted of the underlying offence, with no pending cases. The Court held the rowdy sheet violated Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 and directed the police to close it.

What did the court decide?

Respondents-police directed to close the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner; liberty to take action per Police Standing Orders on future material. No costs.

Surakanti Anupa Reddy Vs The State of Telengana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF IMARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 2750 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Surakanti Anupa Reddy, S/o. Papi Reddy, Age 46 years, Occ ; Agriculture, R/o. Veliminedu Village, Chityal Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶9

.....PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

The Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District.

¶13

The Statron House Officer, lTown Police Station, Nalgonda.

¶14

The Station House Officer, Chityala Police Station, Chityala, Nalgonda District.

¶15

.....RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition Under Article 226 o'f 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 MANDATVUS 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. 30-04-2020 against Cr. No. 258 of 2010 as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, unwarranted and contrary to police Standing Orders No. 601 of Police lr/anual.

¶17

l.A.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^{maybe pleasedto} direct the 4th respondent not to threaten the^{petitioner by frequently callingto} police station, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner : SMT ANNAPURNA SREERAM

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents^: AGP FOR HOME

¶21

The Court made the following ORDER

¶22

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶23

WRIT PETITION No. 2750 of 2024

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

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

¶26

"... to issue a ui[ order or direction more particularlg one in the nature of Lait of MANDAMUS declaing the action of th,e Resporulent No.3 qnd 4 in opening and continuing roudA sheet agatnst the Petitioner euen afier acquittal of the Petitioner in S,C. 1Vo. 191 of 2019 on the fite of Prt. Sessrons Judge, Nalgonda uide Judgment dqted: 3O-04-2O2O agoinst Cr. No.258 of 2010 as betng itlegal, arbitrary, unconstitutiona| untuarronted and contrary to Police Standing Orders No. 601 of Police ManuaL..'

¶27

The case of the petitioner is that after five years of registration of Crime No.258 of 201O on the flle of respondent No.3, she was charge sheeted .^{as Accused No.4 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.19 i of 201,9 and after full-fledged trial, the said Sessions Case ended in acquittal vide judgment dated 30.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 pending against him, the respondents with a mala fide intention are

¶28

¶29

\ \ : I rit lltsi,lr '. .:1.1
'\ .._i;r,t
-!Ea-I

¶30

¶31

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.

¶32

A counter afhdavit on behalf of respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 was filed by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Nalgonda, stating that as the petitioner was involved in Crime No.258/201O registered for the offences under Sections 1208, 3O2, 2OI, 109 IPC on the hle 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 that 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 reviews and the same is renewed upto 3 1 . 12.2024^.

¶33

4 . Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as on date, there are no cases pending against the^petitioner and therefore, prayed to ciose 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 othersr and Vijay Narain Singh

¶34

v. State of Bihar2, in which, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that opening of rowdy sheet and continuing^{the same} without any^valid

¶35

'aln^{t963 sc t zg-s} 'aln^{lgsa sc t::a}

¶36

:x.,

¶37

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. Governmeut of Andhra Pradeshs; Kamma Bapuji v. Station House Oflicer, Brahmasamudram6. 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 charac terizrng a person as a rowdy. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed much reliance on the judgment in Yerramsetti Venugopal

¶38

Rao 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 activilies are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or affecting peace and tranquility in the area; ii) the

¶39

'^{.zooo( r) nLo (crt.)r7 (Ap)}

¶40

'^{zooatt) eLo (crt.)387 (Ap)}

¶41

' lq87{2 ) ALT 904

¶42

:^{lq97(6)ALD 581}

¶43

' r998(3) ALT 5s (DB)

¶44

'^zozolzylLo 1crt.)^lo48(Ap)

¶45

¶46

¶47

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.6O 1 of A.P. Police Manual, Part-I, Volume II, which reads as under:

¶49

"601. The follouing persons maA be classified as roudies and Rotudg Sheets (Fonn 80) mag be opened Jor th,em under the orders of the SP/ DCP and ACP/ SDPO.

¶50

A- Persons uho habituallg commit, attempt to commit or abet tte commissron of offences inuo[uing a breach of the^{peace, disturbanceto} public order and secuitA.

¶51

B. Persons bound ouer under Sections 106, 107, 108(1)⁽ⁱ⁾ and^11O(e) and (g) of Cr.P.C.

¶52

C, Persons u)ho haue been convicted more than once in tluo^con-secutiue geors under sections 59 and 70 of the Hgderabad CitA Police Act or under section 3, clause 12, of the AP Toufts Nuisances Act.

¶53

D. Persons utho habitually tease Luomen and girls and pass indecent remarks.

¶54

F. Persons ulrc intimidate bg threats or use of phgsicat utoLence or other unlawful meons to part uith mouable or immouable properties or in^the habit of coltecting moneg by ertoftion from shopkeepers, trq.ders and ottrcr residents.

¶55

G. Persorls tuho incite and instigate communal/ caste or political iol's.

¶56

H. Persons detairted under the "AP Preuention of Dangerous Actiuities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Imrnoral Traffic Offenders and Land-Grabbers Act, 1986" for a peiod of 6 'r.ontl:s or more.

¶57

I PeJ:o:f u)ho are conuicted for offences under the Representatiues of the Peoples' Act Ior .igging artd carrying anLtag ballot pape,r, Boxes and other po LLing rnateial"'

¶58

¶59

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

¶60

"602 1. Htstory Sheets of suspects shall be maintained from the d-ate of regtstration up to the end of December, after uthich the orders of a gazetTed officer as to their discontinuance or retention for a furtler peiod shalL be obtained.

¶61

Merely because a suspect/ roudg, hautng a history slleet, is not figuing^{as accused in theprevious5 gears afierthe lo-st case} in^which he tuas tnuolued, it shoutd not preclud,e the SP/ DCP/ CP to continue his history sheet if SP/ DCP/ CP is of the constclered view that his actiuities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or one affecting peace and tronquiLlitA in the area or th,e victims are not coming foruard to giue comploint agatnst him on account of ttveat 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 extracted below:

¶64

"742. Rotudies: (1) The follotuing persons maA be classtfied as roudies and Rorudg Sheets (Form 88) mag be opened for them under tle order of the Supeintendent oJ Police or Sub-diuisional OlJicer:

¶65

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

¶66

(b) persons bound ouer under Secrions 106, 107, 1O8(c) and110(1) of the Code of Ciminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No.2 of 1974);

¶67

(c) persons utho haue been conuicted more than once in tuto consea.Ltiue gears under Section 75 of the Madras Citg Police Act or under Section 3, cLause 12, of the Towns Nuisances Act;

¶68

(d) persons who habituatly tease u)omen and girls by passing indecett remarlts or othenaise; and

¶69

¶70

(e) in the case of rotudies residing in an area under one Pohce Station but are found to be frequentlA utsiting the area under ofte, or tnore other Police Stations their roudy sheets can be mqintained at qlt such Police Stations;

¶71

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

¶72

(2) Instructions in Order 735 regarding discontinuance of History Sheets shall also appta to RorLdg Sheets."

¶73

In the present case, 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. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner is a habituai offender and there is every possibility of threat to the public at large. Further, the respondents have not given any specilic instance of the petitioner's involvement in the commission of offence subsequent to the closure/ acquittal of the criminal cases registered against him.

¶74

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 14, 19(1)(9) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶75

Therefore, the respondents-police are directed to close the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner. It is needless to observe .?

¶76

¶77

that if the petitioner involves in any crime in future and if there is any sufficient material to estabtish 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.

¶78

Police Manual.

¶79