AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondents in opening the rowdy sheet dated 08.01.2019 vide Proceedings No.07/Rowdy Sheet/ACP-VPRM/RCK/2018 and continuing the same and calling the petitioner to the police station frequently without there being any authority to them curtailing the petitioner’s liberty as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India and to consequently direct the respondents to close the rowdy sheet opened against him.
The case of the petitioner is that due to political rivalry, he was falsely implicated in five crimes viz., (i) FIR.No.44 of 2017 dated 17.05.2017 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447 & 427 IPC, wherein charge sheet has been filed vide CC.No.1273 of 2017 before the Court of VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Hayathnagar and the same ultimately ended in acquittal; (ii) FIR.No.147 of 2017 dated 24.09.2017 for the offence punishable under Section 353 IPC, wherein charge sheet has been filed vide C.C.No.1114 of 2017 before the Court of XXIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayathnagar and the same ended in acquittal; (iii) FIR.No.202 of 2018 dated 07.07.2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 473, 420 IPC wherein charge sheet has been filed vide C.C.No.1151 of 2020 on the file of XXIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rachakonda, at Hayatnagar and the same is pending for adjudication; (iv) FIR.No.287 of 2018 dated 14.09.2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 290, 143 read with 149 IPC wherein charge sheet has been filed vide C.C.No.337 of 2019 on the file of XXIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Hayathnagar and the same is pending for adjudication; (v) FIR.No.293 of 2018 dated 18.09.2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC wherein charge sheet has been filed vide C.C.No.1107 of 2018 on the file of VII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hayathnagar, and the same ended in compromise. It is the further case of the petitioner that basing on the alleged offences, the respondents opened rowdy sheet against him vide Proceedings No.07/Rowdy Sheet/ACP-VPRM/RCK/2018 dated 08.01.2019 and subsequently, during the time of elections in 2019, at the instance of local rivalry political persons, again four crimes were registered viz., (i) FIR.No.29 of 2019 dated 20.01.2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 171C, 504, 506 read with 34 IPC (ii) FIR.No.30 of 2019 dated 20.01.2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 171C, 504, 506 read with 34 IPC (iii) FIR.No.49 of 2020 dated 09.02.2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 IPC and (vi) FIR.No.58 of 2020 dated 20.02.2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 324, 352, 342, 409, 506 of IPC and 156(3) of Cr.P.C wherein charge sheets have been filed vide STC.No.12 of 2029, STC.No.13 of 2019, CC.No.564 of 2020 and C.C.No.121 of 2021 respectively before the concerned Courts and the same are pending for adjudication. The main grievance of the petitioner is that even though he submitted a detailed representation dated 03.02.2020 to the respondents to close the rowdy sheet, the respondents with a mala fide intention are continuing the rowdy sheet and due to surveillance, he is facing much inconvenience and hardship to lead a respectable and dignified life in the society.
A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.4 inter alia stating that the petitioner is of unlawful character and continuously indulging the commission of lawless acts involving breach of public peace and tranquility. It is further stated that as per the available records, initially five crimes were registered against the petitioner on the file of the Abdullapurmet Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate and taking into consideration his involvement in those criminal cases, as per the proceedings issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vanasthalipuram Division, Rachakonda, vide proceedings No.07/Rowdy Sheet/ACP-VPRM/RCK/2018 dated 08.01.2019, rowdy sheet was opened against the petitioner. Even after opening of the rowdy sheet, the petitioner is again involved in four criminal cases. Thus, in view of his involvement in various criminal cases, even though the petitioner has submitted representation to close the rowdy sheet, it has become incumbent on the part of the respondents to continue the rowdy sheet.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents.
As seen from the record, it is evident that out of five criminal cases initially registered against the petitioner, three cases ended in acquittal and even the four cases which were registered after opening the rowdy sheet are relating to offences punishable under Sections 171(C), 504 and 506 of IPC. A careful examination of the said provisions reveals that they do not deal with offences relating to acts involving breach of public peace and tranquility. Moreover, even as per the Standing Order 601 of A.P.Police Manual, rowdy sheet may be opened against the persons who are convicted for offences under the Representatives of Peoples Act for rigging and carrying away ballot papers, Boxes and other polling material, but, admittedly, in the instant case, the cases registered against the petitioner are relating to offences of undue influence at elections. Thus the said provisions do not enable the respondents police to open or maintain rowdy sheet against the petitioner.
In the instant case, there is no allegation of commission of offence relating to breach of peace or public tranquility by the petitioner after opening of rowdy sheet. Furthermore, even after opening of the rowdy sheet, the respondents police are not regularly reviewing the same as per the Standing Orders of the A.P.Police Manual.
A.P. Police Standing Orders were not statutory in nature and were only a compilation of government orders issued from time to time and they therefore did not invest the police officers with any powers of arrest, detention, investigation of crimes etc., not specifically conferred under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or other enactments. Opening of rowdy sheet against a citizen was undoubtedly fraught with serious consequences and the right to reputation under Article 21 of the Constitution could not be deprived except in accordance with the procedure established by law.
Viewed from any angle, there was no sufficient ground to term the petitioner as “habitual offender” under Clause (A) of Order 601 of A.P.Police Manual. Furthermore, the respondents have not given any specific instance of the petitioner’s involvement in commission of offence relating to breach of public peace and tranquility, subsequent to the opening of the rowdy sheet.
Therefore, the respondents police are directed to review the case of the petitioner for maintaining the rowdy sheet opened against him vide Proceedings No.07/Rowdy Sheet/ACP-VPRM/RCK/2018 dated 08.01.2019 and pass appropriate orders within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to observe that if the petitioner involves in any crime in future and if there is any sufficient material to establish that his movements are required to be prevented, the respondents police are at liberty to take action against him strictly in accordance with the Standing Orders of A.P. Police Manual.
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
There shall be no order as to costs.