Suriti Ramulu vs Superintendent of Police, Mahaboobnagar and another

The above writ petition was filed by the petitioner to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in opening a rowdy-sheet against the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to delete the petitioner''s name in the rowdy-sheet and pass such further orders.

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was resident of Marikal village of Dhanwada Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District, and he was an agriculturist. In addition to that doing some civil contracts in Goa since a long time and he was also the Block Congress President of Devarkadra which falls in Amarchinta Assembly Constituency. He further submitted that one Satyanarayana Goud of Marikal, belonging to Telugu Desam Party, resides in their village, that there is a lane in between the house of said Satyanarayana Goud and S. Veeranna being used as passage for about 20 families living behind the houses of the said two persons and the houses of those two persons face towards the main road. The said Satyanarayana Goud, with an evil idea of blocking the way tried to open a door into the lane by constructing steps and a civil case in OS No.15 of 1998 was filed by one S. Ramulu S/o. Savarappa, before the District Munsif, Narayanpet for injunction against the said Satyanarayana Goud and the other affected parties also filed their affidavits in the said suit and the District Munsif granted temporary injunction restraining him from proceeding with the construction and the said suit is pending. Thereafter, Satyanarayana Goud, on 11-6-1998 gave a complaint to the Marikal Police stating that on 8-6-1998 while he was raising the level of the flooring at his house, the petitioner and eight others tresspassed into his house and beat him and a case in Cr. No.44 of 1998 for the offences under Sections 427, 448, 342, 323 read with 34 IPC was registered. He further stated that though the petitioner was nothing to do with the civil litigation between Satyanarayana Goud and other residents he was shown as accused No.1 in the above criminal case. The said Satyanarayana Goud also gave another complaint which was registered as Cr. No.39 of 1999 on the file of Police Marikal for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 452, 307 read with 147 IPC against eight persons, who figure as the accused in Cr. No.44 of 1998 including the petitioner herein. It is further stated by the petitioner that he was Sarpanch of Marikal village and also Block Congress President of Deverakadra, that due to the local politics and at the instance of local MLA the respondents have opened a rowdy-sheet against him, opening of the rowdy-sheet was also published in the local newspapers against the petitioner. It is also stated that the police have served summons to the petitioner to appear and answer a charge u/s 107 Cr.PC in Cr. No.71 of 1999 on 21-8-1999 at 11.00 a.m., before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Narayanpet. Except the above three cases, there are no criminal cases registered against him. He further submitted that the requirements under Order 742 of the Police Standing Order for opening rowdy-sheet against the petitioner are not at all in existence. Therefore, the action of the respondents is against Articles 14, 19 and 21 of Indian Constitution. Therefore, the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking the above said relief.

In reply to the above averments made by the petitioner, the respondents filed counter stating that the petitioner is an unsocial element indulging in offences causing breach of peace and tranquility in the locality, that besides the three offences, which the petitioner mentioned in his affidavit, the respondent added Cr. No.7 of 1998 u/s 107 Cr.PC before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Narayanpet. They further stated that after conducting lengthy and detailed investigation and after satisfying that there are prima facie cases made out against the petitioner, charge-sheets were filed in the respective Courts, that in view of the involvement of the petitioner in the criminal cases and in view of the fact that he is causing breach of peace, rowdy-sheet was opened on 25-6-1998 as per the instructions of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Narayanpet. They further stated that under the guise of his political status, the petitioner was indulging in offences causing breach of peace and therefore, the rowdy-sheet was opened to check his movement which required to be closely watched in view of the ensuing elections in the State to Parliament and Assembly. As the petitioner was involved in three cases including a case in which he was bound over on 7-2-1998, it is not desirable to close the rowdy-sheet. It is also stated that there was no harassment to the petitioner nor was he deprived of his personal liberty.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner, while arguing the matter, relied on the judgment of this Court in Ejaz v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others. Standing Order No.742 contemplates the procedure to open a rowdy-sheet against a person. For better appreciation of the contentions raised, it is relevant to extract Standing order 742, which reads as under:

"Rowdies: (1) The following persons may be classified as rowdies and Rowdy-Sheets (Form 88) may be opened for them under the order of the Superintendent of Police or Sub-Divisional Officer :

(a) persons who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences involving a breach of the peace;

(b) persons bound over under Sections 106, 107, 108(c) and 110(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No.2 of 1974);

(c) persons who have been convicted more than once in two consecutive years u/s 75 of the Madras City Police Act or u/s 3, clause (12) of the Town Nuisances Act;

(d) persons who habitually tease women and girls by passing indecent remarks or otherwise; and

(e) in the case of rowdies residing in an area under one Police Station but are, found to be frequently visiting the area under one or more other Police Stations, their rowdy-sheets can be maintained at all such Police Stations..."

As seen from the conditions laid down in the above said Police Standing Order, for opening a rowdy-sheet against a person, the person must habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences involving breach of peace, a person bound over under Sections 106, 107, 108(c), 110(1) of Cr.PC, must be a person who have been convicted more than once in two consecutive years u/s 75 of the Madras City Police Act or u/s 3(12) of the Town Nuisances Act, or a person who habitually tease women and girls by passing indecent remarks or otherwise and in the case of rowdies residing in an area under one Police Station, but found to be frequently visiting the area under one or more other Police Station, their rowdy-sheets can be maintained at all such Police Stations.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was an agriculturist and a civil contractor and he was involved in civil dispute between one Satyanarayana Goud and S. Veeranna, when Satyanarayana Goud attempted to open a door blocking the passage affecting the easmentary rights of the residents of the house behind the house of Satyanarayana Goud; that he was not convicted for any of the offences more than once in two consecutive years and that he was not an habitual offender. He further submitted that in the name of surveillance and monitoring the movements of the petitioner in view of the ensuing elections in the State to the Parliament and Assembly, the petitioner is deprived of his personal liberty.

As seen from the counter affidavit, two crimes were registered in 1998 and another two crimes were registered in 1999 and except saying that the acts of the petitioner are causing breach of peace and as per the instructions of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Narayanpet, nothing was said about the petitioner. It is also pertinent to note that Cr. Nos.44 of 1998 and 39 of 1999 were registered based upon the complaint of the same complainant, Satyanarayana Goud. The offences alleged against the petitioner also not serious in nature. The petitioner''s allegation that the rowdy-sheet against him was opened at the instance of the local MLA makes it clear that there are local politics, to which the petitioner fell prey. In these circumstances, I am of the view that surveillance and monitoring of movements of persons whose names are entered in rowdy-sheets should therefore, be proportionate and commensurate to the reasonable apprehension of suspicion entertained by the concerned Police Officer and only with a view to prevent commission of a crime which may result in breach of peace. Any excessive action on the part of the police would not only be ultra vires the Standing Order No.742 but also would be violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and any unauthorised or coercion of any sort would he violative of the fundamental right to freedom and personal liberty guaranteed by the Constitution of India. Therefore, for all the above reasons, I am satisfied, after going through the counter affidavit, that there was political rivalry in the village of which the petitioner was a victim and therefore. I am of the considered view that the petitioner could not have been classified as a rowdy and his name entered in the rowdy-sheet as there was only four crimes registered in the years 1998 and 1999, he could not be said to be habitual offender. That the requirements of Standing Order No.742 are also not satisfied and there is no reason whatsoever to enter the petitioner''s name in the rowdy-sheet.

For the foregoing reasons, a writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to delete the name of the petitioner from rowdy-sheet. It is, however, always open to the authorities to make fresh assessment about the necessity of taking action under the said Police Standing Order, depending upon the availability of material as on today and take decision according to law. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.