Syed Shakeel Ahmed @ Shakeel Vs The State of Telangana

¶1

[^32ss I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 39418 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

SYED SHAKEEL AHMED @ SHAKEEL, S/o. Syed Ali, Aged about 41^years, Occ. Business, R/o. H. No. 22-1-3491350/A, Sultanpura, Noor Khan^Bazar, Hyderabad, T.S.500024

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Home Departrnent Having office at Secretariat Buildings, at Hyderabad, T.S.

¶12

The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶13

The Deputy Commissioner of Police, South Zone, Hyderabad,^T.S.

¶14

The Assistant Commissioner of Police, [Vlirchowk Division, Hyderabad,^T.S.

¶15

fhe Station House Officer, P.S. Rein Bazar, Hyderabad, T.S.

¶16

..RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Articte 226 of the Constitution of lndia^{praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{HighCourt may be} pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly oneⁱⁿ the nature of WRIT OF MANDAIvIUS declaring that the^{actionof respondent no.S} in maintaining rowdy sheet against the^petitioner is illegal,^{arbitrary and} unconstitutional and- cgnqequently direction Ln?y_ be the nt no. 5 to close the Rowdy Sheet being maintained by respondent^{no. 5 againstthe} petitioner.

¶18

l:. :'.

¶19

irriiail:i":I- :,,;;1:iiii::I

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶21

Petition lnder Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^{pleased to pass} an interim direrction thereby directing the respondent no. 5 not to harass the petitioner by way of calling the petitioner to Police Station Rein Bazar unless a crime is registered against him.

¶22

Counsel for th,e Petitioner: SRI SYED JAWEED ABBAS NADEEM

¶23

Counsel for th,e Respondents: GP FOR HOME

¶24

The Court macle the following: ORDER

¶25

o

¶26

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶28

WRIT PETITION No.39418 of 2o.25

¶29

DATE OF ORDER:O6.O L.2A26

Between:

Syed Shakeel Ahmed

.Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and 4 others.

¶35

...Respondents

¶36

ORDER:

¶37

Questioning the action of the respondents in opening of rowdy-sheet against the petitioner, which is contrary to Standing order Nos.601 and 602 of Telangana Police Manual, petitioner filed the present writ petition with a consequential pra-ver to direct the respondent No.5 to close the rowdy-sheet against the petitioner.

¶38

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that FIR No.231 of 2024 on the ,, file of Chaderghat Police Station, Hyderabad, was registered and after completion of investigation charge sheet is filed uid.eS.C. No.681 of 2025 and the same is pending before the learned VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court

¶39

'** I :. r:.',;"^{..:-:. .l :."-} !

¶40

,- i

¶41

2

¶42

at Hyderrrbad. Except the aforesaid case, no other case is registered agarnst the petitioner AS on today

¶43

Since the respondent.s Police are regularly calling the petitioner to the Police st.tion and harassing on the alreged ground of rowdy_sheet, petitioner filed the present writ petitibn.

¶44

3' on the other hand; the respondent No.4, Assistant commissioner of police, Mirchowk Division, Hyderabad filed counter af{idavit, tnter aria, stttting that the petitioner is arrayed as an accused in crime lvo'231 of 2024 and after completion of investigation charge sheet has been filed before the vlII Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate' at Hyderabad vide s.c. No.6g1 of 2o2s and the same is pending.

¶45

Since there is every possibility of petitioner,s invorvement in other cogr.izable offences and in order to keep surveillance over his activities .owdy-sheet has been opened against the petitioner uide No.23llw /ACp/MC-DvNl2o2r dated 09.01 .2o2t on the fire of Mirchowk^police Station, Hyderabad as per the Terangana porice Manual o.der No.6o 1 issued by the Director General of police to follow due' procedure in opening and continuing/renewing the rowdy/suslrect/history sheet. It is further submitted that the porice are not visriting the petitioner,s house and not intruding with his privacy.

¶46

Hearcl the learned counsel for the parties, perused the material on record a,d with their consent, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶47

/ /

¶48

3

¶49

,1 5. It is categorical submission of the^{learned counsel for the} petitioner that except the aforementioned one case no other^{case is} registered nor pending against the^petitioner, which^{has not been} disputed by the learned Assistant Government^{Pleader for Home.} At this^juncture, it is not out of^place to refer^the -order^renderedby this Court in the case of Mansoor Shah^{Khan and othersVs. State}

¶50

of Telangana rep. by its Principal^{Secretary, HomeDepartment,} Hyderabad and othersl wherein it^{is held that rowdy-sheet could not} be opened against an individual in a^{casualand mechanicalmanner} and due care and caution should be taken^{by the Police before} characterizinga person as a rowdy and^{figuring as an accused in two} cases would not be sufficient to characterize^{a personas a habitual} offender. For better appreciation, the^{relevant paras No.23, 24 and 26} are extracted hereunder.

¶51

"23. As stated aboue, as per Standing Order 601 of tfe A.P. Police Manual, for opening^and maintenance of rowd.g sheet, a^person against whom the same uuas issued should^habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet^the commission of offenes inuoluing a breach^of peace, disturbance to pu.blic ord.er and seatntg. Further, as hel.d by tlrc Hon'ble Apex Courtⁱⁿ Vijag Narain Singh's case (2 supra), th.e expression 'haiianltg' would mean 'repeatedlA' or 'persistentlg' implying a thread of continuity, stringing togetLer similar

¶52

'^zozt 1+1ALT^{36 (r's)}

t

b €i)

4

repetitiue acts, and a single act or omission would not characterize qn act as ,lmbitual,. The Hon'ble Apex Court was of the opinion that to qualifu as a'habit,, a person must haue grown accustonted. to lead"ing a ttfe of cime, whereby it would be a force of habit, inherent or latent, in an indiuiduat with a criminal instinct, uith a criminal dbposition of mind, that makes him dangerou.s to society in general. In Majid Babu's case (6 supra), by refering to Standing Order No.742, it was Letd that tuto instances of inuoluement in criminal c@ses u;ould not make a person a,habihtal offend.er, and that atleast more than two instances should be present before a person can be described as a habitual offend"er. Rowd.y sheet could not be opened. against an indiuidual in a casual and. mechanical manner and. due care and caution should. be taken bg the police before characterizing a person as a rowd.y. Figuring as an acatsed. in ttuo cases would. not be sufficient to characterize a person as a habitual offend"er.

¶57

In uiew of the aboue said. laut laid. d.own and in uiew of the aboue said. di.scttssion, the petitioners heretn were inuolued. in the aboie said two cimes. One crime has end.ed. in acquittal. As on tod.ag, only one case i.e pRC.No.307 of 202O ,s pending against *rc petitioners herein. Thus, tlrc requirement of inuoluement of in at least more than tuto cases for inferrtng that tlte

.N

5

1 t

petitioners were habitual offenders was ruot establislrcd.

¶62

Thus opening of rowdg sheets in the name of the petitioners is therefore contrary to tlrc procedure laid. d.own und.er A.P. Potice Manual and procedure laid down in the Judgments supra.

¶63

Therefore, the wit petition is allowed and the respond"ents are d.irected. to close the rowd.y sheets being maintained in ttrc names of the petitioners on the file of Banjara Hitts Police Statioru, Hyd"erabad. There shatl be no ord.er as to cos[s. "

¶64

From the above, it could be culled out that for inferring a person as a habitual offender, his involvement in at least more than two cases is required. Further, as per Standing Order 601 of the Telangana Police Manual, for opening and maintenance of rowdy sheet, a person against whom the same was issued should habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences involving a breach of peace, disturbance to public order and security. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner is involved in F.I.R.No.231 of 2024 on the file of Chaderghat Police Station, Hyderabad and the same is pending. Except one aforementioned case registered against the petitioner, flo other case is pending against the petitioner. Thus, opening of rowd.y-sheet and continuing the.same against the petitioner is contrary to the procedure laid down under Telangana Police Manual and against the law laid down by this Court in the case

¶65

r /

¶66

6

¶67

of Mansoor shah Khan (cited supra) therefore, the rowdy-sheet opened against the petitioner is liable to be closed.

¶68

r\

¶69

Acr:ordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to close the rowdy-sheet opened against the petitioner. However, it is made clear that this order does not preclude the respondent Police authority. to initiate appropriate action on the petitioner, if he indulges in any activity which is against the public tranquility. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶70

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending,

shall stand closed.

S KR.ISHNA

{

//TRUE COPY/