Sri Vankala Jagadeesh vs The State Of Ap & Ors.

This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to close the Suspect Sheet No.2/2019, dt.21.12.2019 opened against the petitioner.

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that respondent No.4 recommended the opening of a suspect sheet against him and, accordingly, respondent Nos.2 and 3 issued proceedings dated 21.12.2019, vide C.No.130/SUS/OPEN/ACP Cr/2019. It is contended that respondent Nos.2 and 3 lacked the authority or jurisdiction to issue the impugned proceedings and that respondent No.2 had no authority to direct the opening of the suspect sheet. According to the petitioner, only one criminal case, namely Crime No.45 of 2019, is registered against him and no other case is pending against him. It is further contended that the respondents failed to follow the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India^{11.2017 (10) scc 1} and the relevant A.P. Police Standing Orders, and that the suspect sheet was opened erroneously.

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home filed a counter-affidavit admitting that only one case is pending against the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner has scant respect for the law; that the investigation in Crime No.45 of 2019 has been completed and a charge sheet has been filed, which was taken on file as C.C. No.286 of 2019 and is pending before the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam; and that the suspect sheet was opened to curb and prevent the petitioner’s unlawful activities in the vicinity of the Steel Plant. It is further stated that permission was obtained from respondent Nos.2 and 3 in accordance with Order No.600(1) of the A.P. Police Manual. On these grounds, the respondents contend that there is no illegality in opening the suspect sheet and pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

Heard Sri R. Siva Sai Swarup, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri R. Mallikarjuna, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.4 recommended the opening of a suspect sheet without following the Police Standing Orders, particularly Order No.601 of the A.P. Police Manual, and that respondent Nos.2 and 3 issued the proceedings opening Suspect Sheet No.2/2019 contrary to the applicable Standing Orders. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not a habitual offender, has not been convicted, and is not involved in any other offence apart from the case referred to in the writ petition. According to the learned counsel, the suspect sheet was opened without adhering to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, thereby curtailing the petitioner’s rights.

Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the suspect sheet was opened to curb and prevent the petitioner’s unlawful activities in the vicinity of the Steel Plant and that the requisite permission was obtained. He, therefore, submits that the writ petition is devoid of merit.

The record reveals that, on the basis of a report lodged by the de facto complainant, Crime No.45 of 2019 was registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 392 IPC. Upon completion of the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet, which was taken on file as C.C. No.286 of 2019 on the file of the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. It is not in dispute that no other criminal case is pending against the petitioner.

In B. Satyanarayana Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh^{22.2004(1) ALD (Crl.) 387}, it was held that, under Police Standing Order No.742, for including a person’s name in a rowdy sheet, it must be established that the person habitually commits or abets the commission of offences involving a breach of peace. A solitary case involving a breach of peace is not sufficient to justify the inclusion of a person’s name in a rowdy sheet.

In Majid Babu v. Government of A.P.^{33.1987 (2) ALT 904}, a Division Bench of this Court, placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vide Malak Singh v. State of Punjab^{44.(1981) 1 SCC 420}, held as follows:

It was further observed that two instances would not make a person a habitual offender and that more than two instances should be present before a person can be described as a habitual offender. Merely because persons figure as accused in two crimes registered by the police, no inference can be drawn that they are habitual offenders.

In Puttagunta Pasi v. Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada ^{55.(1998) 3 ALT 55} , 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 apposite to mention that the Standing Order No.600 (1) of the A.P. Police Manual and the same is reproduced as follows:

It is not in dispute that, apart from the aforesaid case, the petitioner is neither an accused in any other case nor has he been convicted in any other case. The Standing Order No.600(1) of the A.P. Police Manual, which sets out the categories of persons against whom such sheets may be opened, including persons convicted and considered likely to commit offences again; persons believed to be addicted to crime; members of criminal gangs or organised criminal syndicates who have been charge-sheeted; persons involved in communal or caste violence; and persons involved in specified serious offences and activities.

A reading of the aforesaid Standing Order shows that it identifies specified categories of persons against whom a suspect or rowdy sheet may be opened, subject to the requirements of the Standing Order. The categories include persons addicted to crime, members of criminal gangs or organised crime syndicates, persons involved in communal or caste violence, and persons involved in specified serious offences. In the present case, the record and the counter-affidavit disclose only Crime No.45 of 2019, registered under Section 392 IPC, against the petitioner. This Court, therefore, does not express any opinion on the merits of the criminal case and confines its consideration to the legality of opening and continuing the impugned suspect sheet.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the light of the aforesaid decisions and the applicable Standing Order, 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.600(1) or that he is habitually involved in criminal activity. The only reason stated by the respondents for opening the suspect sheet is the need to curb the petitioner’s alleged unlawful activities in the vicinity of the Steel Plant. Such a general assertion, unsupported by material demonstrating the requisite habitual conduct or other applicable grounds under the Standing Order, is insufficient to justify the opening or continuation of the suspect sheet. The fact that a charge sheet has been filed in one criminal case, by itself, does not establish that the petitioner is a habitual offender or that the requirements of the Standing Order are satisfied. In these circumstances, the opening and continuation of Suspect Sheet No.2/2019 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. Suspect Sheet No.2/2019, dated 21.12.2019, opened against the petitioner, is hereby set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.