KOLA RAMA KRISHNA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The Writ Petition has been filed seeking the following relief:- “… to issue an appropriate Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action things and deeds of Respondents in opening and continuing the Suspect Sheet No 84 /2024 in 4th Respondent Police Station which is illegal irregular uhconstitution against to the Principles of Natural Justice contra to the orders of Andhra Pradesh Police Manual and also in violation of Articles 14 19 and 21 of Constitution of India consequently direct the Respondents to close the Suspect Sheet No 84 /2024 in 4th Respondent Police Station pending against Petitioner and pass….”

2. Sri Seshagiri Rao, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the very initiation and continuance of the Suspect Sheet against the Petitioner is wholly arbitrary, dehors the Police Standing Orders, and violative of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the Respondents have acted mechanically without any tangible material to demonstrate that the Petitioner’s conduct has any propensity to disturb public peace or tranquillity. The impugned action, apart from being procedurally irregular, has the effect of stigmatizing the Petitioner, lowering his dignity and honour in the eyes of society, and thereby constitutes a direct infraction of the right to life with dignity. The learned Counsel further submits that the Police Standing Orders themselves mandate annual review of Suspect Sheets in the month of December, and closure thereof in the absence of adverse activities. The Respondents, however, have failed to adhere to their own statutory procedure, rendering the Suspect Sheet a nullity in law. 3

3. It is further urged that repeated representations made by the Petitioner to the Respondents seeking closure of the Suspect Sheet have elicited no positive response, thereby exposing the mala fide and oppressive conduct of the Police. The continued surveillance and harassment of the Petitioner, despite absence of any incriminating material, amounts to colourable exercise of power and is subversive of the principles of fairness and natural justice. In these circumstances, the Petitioner is left with no efficacious alternative remedy except to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking appropriate reliefs and directions to declare the action of the Respondents in opening and continuing the Suspect Sheet as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional.

4. Per contra, Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, submits that the Petitioner’s attempt to assail the Suspect Sheet is wholly misconceived and bereft of merit. It is contended that the Petitioner has scant regard for the law, having already been convicted in Cr.No.179 of 2024 under the A.P. Gaming Act, culminating in C.C.No.705 of 2024 before the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thiruvuru, wherein he was found guilty and fined. In view of such antecedents, the competent authority, upon due permission from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mylavaram, rightly directed the opening of Suspect Sheet No.84/2024, which is being lawfully maintained in accordance with the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual. The classification of suspects under Order No.600(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual squarely covers persons convicted of offences who are likely to 4 reoffend, and the Petitioner falls within this category. The continuance of the Suspect Sheet is thus neither arbitrary nor unconstitutional, but a measure necessitated in the larger public interest to safeguard peace and tranquillity.

5. It is further urged that Standing Order 602(2) empowers the Superintendent of Police or Deputy Commissioner of Police to continue a history sheet even if the suspect has not figured as an accused in the preceding five years, provided the authority is satisfied that his activities remain prejudicial to public order or that victims are deterred from lodging complaints due to threats. The Petitioner’s contention that surveillance infringes his dignity is untenable, for the preventive jurisdiction of the Police is exercised to protect society from potential recidivism. The Suspect Sheet is not punitive but regulatory, intended to curb unlawful tendencies and ensure public safety. In the absence of any procedural infirmity or violation of constitutional safeguards, the Writ Petition does not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and is liable to be dismissed.

6. Admittedly, no criminal case is pending against the Petitioner as of now. In such circumstances, the continuation of the rowdy sheets/suspect sheet, which were initially opened is wholly unjustified. The Respondents ought to have closed the rowdy sheets/suspect sheets. The vague assertion that the Petitioner's activities are prejudicial to public interest and pose threat to the locality is unsupported by any cogent material. Mere bald allegations, sans substantive evidence, cannot justify the continuation of such coercive measures. Hence, the impugned action is unsustainable in law. 5

7. In pari materia, this Court in Tadiboyina Peraiah @ Mahesh v. State of A.P1 held that when no crimes are pending against a person and no material is produced to demonstrate threat to public peace, continuation of a rowdy sheet under Standing Order No. 601 or 602(2) of the A.P. Police Standing Orders is impermissible.

8. Similarly, in Sunkara Satyanarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh2, a Coordinate Bench categorically observed that rowdy sheets cannot be opened in a casual or mechanical manner. Mere dubbing of an individual as a habitual offender is insufficient. The Police must exercise due care and caution before branding a person as a rowdy, and the essential consideration is whether the acts of such person have a tendency to disturb public peace and tranquillity.

9. A careful reading of these precedents clearly indicates that the creation or continuation of rowdy sheet requires strict adherence to procedural safeguards and regular review by the statutorily designated authorities. The Respondents are duty-bound to examine whether the alleged misconduct genuinely affects public peace. In the present case, the Petitioner have been convicted in Cr.No.179 of 2024 under the A.P. Gaming Act, culminating in C.C.No.705 of 2024 before the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thiruvuru, wherein he was found guilty and fined and no other case is pending against him. In such circumstances, the continuation of the impugned rowdy sheet/suspect sheet amounts to an arbitrary exercise of power and constitutes an abuse of process. 1 2021 (2) ALT (Crl.) 161 2 2000(1) ALD (Crl.) 117 (AP) 6

10. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petitions are disposed of, declaring that the continuation of the impugned Suspect Sheet No.84/2024 against the Petitioners is illegal. The Respondent authorities are directed to forthwith close the said suspect sheet opened against the Petitioner.

11. However, it is made clear that the Respondent/Police authorities shall be at liberty to invoke the powers conferred under Standing Order No.601 or Standing Order No.602(2) of the A.P.Police Standing Orders against Petitioner, is found in future that Petitioner fall within any of circumstances enumerated in the aforesaid Standing Orders. No order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. Date: 09.03.2026 VTS _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J