AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to close the rowdy sheet maintained against the petitioner at Tsunduru Police Station, Tsunduru, Bapatla District.
The petitioner’s case, in brief, is that respondent No.2 recommended opening a suspect sheet against him on the basis of two crimes: (i) Crime No.88 of 2018 of Old Guntur Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307, 452, 427 and 120-B read with Section 149 IPC, which was numbered as S.C. No.109 of 2020 on the file of the IV Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur, and ended in the petitioner’s acquittal by judgment dated 29.12.2022; and (ii) Crime No.51 of 2018 of Old Guntur Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC, which is stated to be pending in C.C. No.22 of 2023 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur.
Further, respondent No.2 had no authority to direct respondent No.3 to open a rowdy sheet against the petitioner and that the action is unsustainable, as only a suspect sheet could have been opened under Order No.600(1). Of the two crimes referred to, the case in S.C. No.109 of 2020 ended in acquittal. It is further submitted that the only other case pending against the petitioner arises out of a civil dispute.
The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home filed counter-affidavit contending that the petitioner has scant respect for the law and was involved in i) Crime No.303 of 2016 under Sections 324, 506 IPC of Old Guntur Police Station and the same is compromised before the Lok Adalat on 05.05.2017, ii) Crime No.51 of 2018 under Sections 324 r/w 34 IPC of Old Guntur Police Station. In this case, investigation is completed and charge sheet was filed before the Hon’ble VI Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Guntur vide C.C. No.631 of 2018 and the same is pending trial and iii) Crime No.88 of 2018 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 307, 452, 427 (b) read with 149 IPC of Old Guntur Police Station. In this case, the petitioner along with six (6) others are involved, wherein petitioner is accused No.2 and the same was ended in acquittal on 05.05.2017. In view of the involvement of the petitioner in the above cases and curtail his unlawful activities after obtaining permission from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Guntur, East Sub Division, a rowdy sheet has been opened vide proceedings No.C.No.8/SDPO.EAST/2018 dt.22.04.2018 and the same was transferred to Tsundur Police Station, Bapatla district vide C.No.30/D4/DCRB-Guntur/ 2022, dt.22.07.2022 and the same was renewed from time to time. It is further stated that permission was obtained from respondent Nos.2 in accordance with Order No.601 of the A.P. Police Manual. On these grounds, the respondents contend that there is no illegality in opening the rowdy sheet and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
Heard Sri Venkat Chalasani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. Mallikarjuna, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that recommending and opening rowdy sheet are not valid in the eye of law, respondent No.3 issued proceedings opening a rowdy sheet contrary to Order No.601 of the A.P. Police Manual and not followed the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court; petitioner neither habitual offender nor convicted and involved in any other offence apart from the cases referred to in the writ petition, thereby infringing the petitioner’s rights.
Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the rowdy sheet was opened to curb and prevent the petitioner’s unlawful activities after obtaining the requisite permission. He, therefore, submits that the writ petition is devoid of merit.
The record and the counter-affidavit disclose that Crime No.51 of 2018 was registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC at Old Guntur Police Station. Upon completion of the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet, and the case is stated to be pending. Admittedly, except this case no other case is pending against him. The rowdy sheet was opened on 22.04.2018 vide proceedings No.C.No.8/SDPO.EAST/2018, dated 22.04.2018 and it has been renewing from time to time. The petitioner was acquitted in S.C. No.109 of 2020 on the file of IV Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307, 452, 427 and 120-B read with Section 149 IPC another case was registered u/s 324 was also ended in acquittal in view of the settlement before the Lok-Adlat.
In this regard, it is to be noted that B. Satyanarayana Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh1, it was held that, under Police Standing Order No.742, inclusion of a person’s name in a rowdy sheet requires material showing that the person habitually commits or abets offences involving a breach of peace. A solitary instance involving a breach of peace is not, by itself, sufficient to justify such inclusion.
In Puttagunta Pasi v. Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada 2 , a Division Bench of this Court held that opening rowdy sheets in a routine manner against persons who are not habitual offenders is impermissible. The Division Bench further observed as follows:
“...it is clear that rowdy sheets cannot be opened against any individual in a casual and mechanical manner. Dubbing a person as a habitual offender and opening a rowdy sheet is not sufficient. On the other hand, due care and caution shall be taken by the Police before characterising a person as a rowdy. The important element that has to be seen in the acts of an offender is whether the acts so committed by a person will have a tendency to disturb public peace and tranquillity.”
In Majid Babu v. Government of A.P.3, a Division Bench of this Court, placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vide Malak Singh v. State of Punjab4, held as follows:
“When the Police open Rowdy Sheets against persons involving any offences pertaining to breach of peace, they need not communicate the reasons nor are the persons concerned entitled to be heard before the rowdy sheets are opened. Nonetheless, when a complaint is made to the Court that, contrary to the provisions of the Police Standing Order, Rowdy Sheets are opened, the respondents are under a duty to satisfy the Court that the action taken by them accords with the provisions of the Police Standing Orders or any other valid provision of law.”
It is apposite to mention that the relevant Standing Order No.601 of the A.P. Police Manual and the same is reproduced as follows:
I. Persons bound over under Sections 106, 107, 108 (1) and 110 (e) and (g) of Cr.P.C.
II. 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 A.P Town Nuisances Act.
III. Persons who habitually tease women and girls and pass indecent remarks including offences u/s 354-A, B, C and 354 D IPC.
IV. Persons who have been charge sheeted under the offence of Rape (376, 376 A, C, D, E)
V. Persons who have been charge sheeted under the offences of POCSO Act, 2012 and Acid Attacks (326 A and 326 B of IPC)
VI. Rowdy sheets for the rowdies residing one police station area but found frequenting the other Police Stations area, can be maintained at all such police stations.
VII. 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 residence including “loan sharks”.
VIII. Persons who incite, instigate and participate in communal/ caste or political riots.
IX. Persons detained under the AP prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 for a period of6 months or more.
X. Persons on whom charge sheets filed under the offence of assault on public servants, under Arms Act and such other offences punishable with imprisonment of 2 years or more.
XI. Persons on whom charge sheets filed under the offence of murder and attempt to murder (302 and 307 IPC).
XII. Persons on whom charge sheets filed under the offence of chain snatching.
XIII. Persons who are convicted under the Representation of People Act,1951 for rigging, carrying away, damaging ballot paper, boxes and polling mațerial.
It is not in dispute that, apart from the cases referred to above, the petitioner is not an accused in any other case and has not been convicted in any other case. Standing Order No.601 of the A.P. Police Manual specifies the categories of persons against whom a rowdy sheet may be opened, subject to the conditions contained therein.
A reading of the aforesaid Standing Order shows that they identify specified categories of persons against whom a suspect or rowdy sheet may be opened, subject to the requirements prescribed therein. The categories include persons habitually involved in offences affecting public peace and order, persons involved in specified serious offences, and persons whose activities fall within the other enumerated categories. In the present case, the record and counter-affidavit disclose Crime No.51 of 2018, registered under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC, which is pending as a calendar case. This Court expresses no opinion on the merits of that criminal case and confines its consideration to the legality of opening and continuing the impugned rowdy sheet.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the light of the aforesaid decisions and the applicable Standing Orders, this Court is of the considered view that the respondents have not placed any material to show that the petitioner falls within any category contemplated by Standing Order No.601 or that he is habitually involved in criminal activity. The general assertion that the rowdy sheet was opened to curb the petitioner’s alleged unlawful activities, without supporting material demonstrating habitual conduct or any other applicable ground under the Standing Orders, is insufficient to justify its opening or continuation. The filing of a charge sheet in one criminal case, by itself, does not establish that the petitioner is a habitual offender or that the requirements of the Standing Orders are satisfied. Consequently, the opening and continuation of the rowdy sheet cannot be sustained and amount to an arbitrary exercise of police power. The impugned action is, therefore, liable to be set aside.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to close the rowdy/history sheet maintained in the name of the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.