Kaki Jai Krishna @ Chanti Vs The State of Telangana

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 an appropriate Wrrt, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of^"WRIT OF IVIANDAMUS" by declaring the action of the Respondent No. 5 in opening & continuing the rowdy sheet against the petitioner herein as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 2'l of the Constitution of lndia and direct the Respondent No- 5 to close the rowdy sheet of the petitioner maintained at Warasiguda Police Station, Hyderabad.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶20

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

¶21

direct the Respondent No 5 not to Harass and not to call the petitioner to Police Station Warasiguda, Hyderabad.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. SATISH CHAKRAVARTHY

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI M. SRINIVAS, ASST. GP FOR HOME

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E,V.VENUGOPAL

W.P.No.25583 of 2o25

Date: 03 02 2026

Between:

Kaki Jai Krishna @ Chantl

¶31

...petitioner

¶32

AND

¶33

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretarlr, Home Department, Secretariat, Building, Secretariat, Hyderabad and five others.

¶34

re spondents

¶35

ORDER

¶36

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief/s:-

¶37

"........to declarc the action of the Respondent No. 5 in opening and continuing the rowdy sheet against the petitioner herein as bcing illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 (I) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India ald direct the Respondent No. 5 to close the rowdy sheet of the petitioner maintair-rerl at Warasiguda Police Station, Hyderabad and pass sut:lr other orclers."

¶38

Heard Sri K.Satish Chakravarthy, learned \ counsel for the petitioner and Sri M Srinivas, learned

¶39

EVV,J l'.P No 2-t-i8-',1 ot 2025

¶40

Assistant Government pleader for Home, appearing for the respondents. Perused the material available on record

¶41

When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for thc petitioner would submit that the subject matter in this Writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in W.p.No. IBOZ2 of 2024 dated 1B-09-2025, wherein this Court while foilowing the judgment of this Court in, Mansoor Shah Khan v. State of Telanganal, in order to classify a person as a habitual offender, the accused should be involved in more than tu,o criminal cases, allowed the said Writ petition hoiding that the respondents are directed to close the rovrcly sheet opened against the petitioner forthu.ith and that the police are given liberty to open rowd1. sheet against the petitioner, if he is involved in more than tr,r.o cnmes and the conditions prescribed in Standing Order No.6O 1 of Telangana Police N{anual. Therefore, he would submit that following the said orcler, this Writ petition also ma-y be allowed.

¶42

'1tosl):^,rLtoo+

¶43

EV V,J W.P.No 25583 of2025

¶44

3

¶45

i I i

¶46

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home has reported no objection.

¶47

Therefore, following the order passed in W.P.No.18072 of 2024 dated l8-O9-2O25 and for reasons alike, this writ petition is a,lso allowed. The respondents are directed to close the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner ,before the 6th respondent Chikkadpally police station, forthwith. Needless to mention that the police are at liberty to open rowdy sheet against the petitioner, if the petitioner is involved in more than two crimes subject to the cbnditions prescribed in Stalding Order No.6O 1 of Tela:ngana Police Manual. There shall be no order as to costs. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶48

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions

¶49

pending, if any, shall stand closed

¶50

//TRUE COPY//

¶51

SD/-P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER

¶52

To,

¶53

I

¶54

The Principal Secretary Home Department, The State of Telangana, New Secretariat, Tank Bund, Hyderabad, TG.

¶55

The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, T.G.

¶56

The Deputy Commissioner of Police, East Zone, Hyderabad, T.G.

¶57

The Asst. Commissioner of Police, Chikkadpally Division, Hyderabad, T.G.

¶58

The Station House Officer, Warasiguda Police Station, Hyd6rabad, T.G.

¶59

The Station House Officer, Chikkadpally Police Station, Hyderabad, T.G.

¶60

One CC to SRI K, SATISH CHAKRAVARTHy, Advocate IOPUC]

¶61

Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Tetanga-na. [OUT] 9. Two CD Copies BN

HIGH COURT

DATED:0310212026

ORDER

WP.No.25583 of 2025

t oR THE S
otC) 2 4 uXq ?l12fi
()2
.L

BArir

¶67

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION
WITHOUT COSTS
@
e.l\v iau

¶68

THE HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶69

WRIT PETITION No.1807 2of2024

¶70

ORDER:

¶71

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5. With their consent this writ petition is taken up for disposal.

¶72

This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the action of respondent No.5 in opening Rowdy sheet against the petitioner without following due process of law as illegal, arbitary and against the principles of natural fustice and violation of Articles 14 a..d 2-l of the constitution of India and contrary to the procedure laid down under Police Standing Orders.

¶73

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the facts mentioned in the writ affidavit are not clear and prays the court to consider the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.4.

¶74

The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Chilkalaguda Divisiory East Zone, Hyderabad in his counter submits that petitioner is involved in the following cases of Chilkalaguda Police Station, Hyderabad:

¶75

(D Crime No.171 of 2024

¶76

(ii) Crime No.500 of 2023

¶77

It is submitted that all the above cases are under investigation. It is further submitted that the petitioner is young, very active, energetic and creating nusiance and the activities of the petitioner towards public is creating

¶78

2

¶79

II

¶80

panic in^{the mindsof tht: fublicand grave concern that theycannotstay} securely^{in arcas rvhichresultsin seriousthreat to public tranquilityand} disturbance^{and ca. creatc,lawand ord.er probremin the localityand there are} ptenty^{of ananyrnousconrplaints against the petitioner and due to fear they} are not^{giving their identity andtherc is every possibilityof his involvement in} other^{cognizable offencesand in the above circumsances'it is necessary to} keep^{him underregular reconnaissancefrominvolving in subversiveactivities} affecting^{the communitY'as such} 5th resPondent sent^{proposals vide} 07.05.2024^{requestingthe Assistant} No.91ltlW/CKD-PS^{/ 2024 dated} Commissioner^{of policer, Ch kargudaDivision, rlyderabad City to accord} permission^{to oPenRorr'dv Sheet against the petitionerso as to preventthe} petitiont'r^{from committing criminalactivities and to savethe common people'} lt is^{f urther submittedthat as Per A P'P'M Order No'601 (B)' the Assistant} Commissioner^{of porice, ChilkargudaDivison, Hyderabadissued orders in} proceeclrngs^{No 66/OW/ACP-CKDl2024dated 07 05'2024according} permission^{to open rowdy sheet against the petitioner and the said rowdy} sheet is^{being continuedfrom time to time by conducting periodical reviews} and it^{stanclsreneweclopto31J122024'It is further submittedthat the} respondents^{arefollowingthe dueprocedureinopneingand} continuing/^{renewingthe rowdy/suspect/historysheets and the concerned} police^{are followingthe procedureas per A'P'P'M Orders599 to 602 as well as} Circular^{andreviewingthecase'}

¶81

3

¶82

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as on today only two cases are pending against him. It is furthcr submitted that this Court in similar set of facts and circumstances vide order dated 20.02.2023 passed tn W.P.No.t14846 of 2022 allowed the writ petition directing the respondents therein to close the rowdy sheet against the petitioner therein forthwith. The relevant paragraph is extracted for reference:

¶83

"5. As held by this Court in Mansoor Shah Khan V. State of Telangana (W.P.No.22980 of 2020 dated 07.06.2021, opening or continuing rowdy sheet against accused is not permissible unless they are involved in more than two criminal cases. Apart from that activities of the accused must be causing breach of peace, public tranquilify, security and public order etc. As admitted by the Iearned Assistant Govemment Pleader for Home, the petitioner is involved only in one crime.

¶84

Therefore, the writ petition is allowed directing the respondents to close the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner forthwith. The police are given liberty to open rowdy sheet agahst the pehtioner if he involved in more than two crimes and the conditions prescribed in Standing Order No.601 of Telangana Police Manual Standing Orders are attracted. No order as to costs."

¶85

In the case on hand, as submitted by the learned counsel on either side there are only two cases pending against the petitioner.

¶86

In that view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed directing the respondents to close the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner forthwith. Its made clear that the respondents are at liberty to open rowdy sheet against the petitioner if he is involved in more than two crimes subject to the conditions prescribed in Standing Order No.601 of Telangana Police Manual

¶87

4

¶88

9 With the abovc^{dircctions, this writ petition is allowed'}

¶89

Misccllaneous applications,^{if any pending, shallstand closedNo order}

¶90

as to costs

¶91

JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN^KUMAR

¶92

Date:18.09'2O25 VRKS

Kaki Jai Krishna @ Chanti v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaki Jai Krishna @ Chanti v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Lavudya Anitha Vs State of Telangana

M/s Ironwood Cafe Vs The State of Telangana

Pedelli Chandraiah Vs The State of Telangana

Chintakayala Veerendra Kumar Vs The State Election Commissioner

Taneeru Raju, Vs The State of Telangana

Malipatel Santhamma Vs The State of Telangana