As per the decision of this Court in MAJID BABU v. HOME SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESHI. in order to classi

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents more particularly that of respondents 3, 6 and 7 in opening/ continuing rowdy sheet even after the acquittal in CC No 645 of 2017 on the file of Learned X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad and without there being any pending case for past 6 years, further binding over the petitioner before Special Executive Magistrate and time again interfering with his life and liberty as being as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, against the letter and spirit of catena of Judgments rendered by Honorable Supreme Court on Human Dignity and protection of Human Rights more particularly that of Judgment of this Honorable Court in WP No 773312015 in case of M. Malla Reddy V State of Telangana apart from being violative of Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia, and consequently direct the respondents to close the rowdy sheet against the petitioner lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents more particularly that of respondents 3 to 7 not to interfere with the life and liberty of the petitioner by calling him to their offices and police stations, on a pretext of counseling, offering undermining threats, making him sit for hours together in continuance of Rowdy Sheet against the petitioner pending disposal of the case Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. IMMANENI RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SRI M. SRINIVAS, AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER ) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITIO N No.94l OF 2025 ORDER: (ORAL) The writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in ,opening the rowdy sheet against the petitioner, without following due process of law, as being arbitrary and illegal.

2. Heard Mr. lmmaneni Rama Ramo, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Srinivas, leamed Assistant Govemrgent Pleader for Home.

3. No.4 In paragraph No.3 ofthe counter affidavit filed by respondent the Assistant Commissioner of Police, North Zone, Hyderabad, it is stated that petitioner was involved in six (6) crimes. In the case shown at Sl.No. I i.e., Crime No. 120 of 2006 of Manedpally Police Station, wherein, charge sheet was filed in S.C. No.5l3 of 2006, and the case was ended in acquittal. In the case shown at Sl.No.2 i.e., Crime No. 194 of 2012 of Marredpally Police Station, wherein, charge sheet was filed in S.C. No.2l of 2017, and the case was ended in acquittal. In the case shown at Sl-No'3 i.e., 2 TE 1 Crime No. 132 of 2012 of Thukaramgate Police Station, wherein, charge sheet rvas filed in C.C. No.l461 of 2017, and the case was ended in acquittal. ln the case shown at Sl.No.4 i.e., Crime No.2l5 of 2014 of Marredpally Police Station, wherein, charge sheet was filed in C.C. No.623 of 2015, and the case was ended in acquittal. In the case shown at Sl.No.S i.e., Crime No.295 of 2014 of Marredpally Police Station, wherein, charge sheet was filed in C.C. No.987 of 2016, and the case was ended in acquittal. In the case shown at Sl.No.6 i.e., Crime No.247 of 2016, wherein, charge sheet was filed in C.C. No.645 of 2017, and the ca3e was ended in acquittal. Hence, there are no cases pending against the petitioner. Thus, continuance of rowdy sheet against the petitioner is iltegal and arbitrary.

4. As per the decision of this Court in MAJID BABU V. HOME SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESHI. in order to classi$ a person as a habitual offender, he should be involved in more than two criminal cases. Following the aforesaid judgment, this Court in Mansoor Shah Khan v. State of '(rg8t)zeLrsoq 3 Telangana (W.P.No.22980 of 2020 dated 01.06.2021), held that rowdy sheet cannot be opened against a person unless he is involved in more than two criminal cases. The requirement of involvement in at least more than two cases for inferring the petitioner herein as habitual offender is not established in this case. Hence, the continuance of rowdy sheet against the petitioner is unsustainable.

5. In view of the above, the writ petition IS allowed. The respondents are directed to forthwith close the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner. However, this order shall not preclude the respondent authorities to open a rowdy sheet against the petitioner' if the petitioner is invorved in more than two (2) criminar cases' by fo'owing due process of law and in accordance with the conditions prescribed in the Order No.60l of the Telangana State Police Manual (TSPM). There shall be no.order as to costs_ Asa sequel thereto, miscellaneous pending in rhe wri t petition shnd closed. applications, if any, llrRuEcopytt o*B?;il'?l'd8P{fl \ SECT,ON OFFICER I tary Home,T.SS ecreta rtat yderabad The pfln cipal Secre The Co mrnissrone Con tro I Banja ra Hills Hva D Co mm rssioner Ihe Couft Com Iex, Secu Assis p Comm,ssonerate. Com miss toner of court Complex, Secu nderabad Po/ice Pol,ce Po erabad H baO yderabad H omrnissonerate, Command North Zone, Hyderabad North Zone Hyderabad -r/ To 1 z J-

4. d Police ngana at BM/BN \ HIGH COURT DATED:1310212025 \ ORDER WP.No.941 of 2025 CC TODAY 5-TATE o A 9 c 1\ ltt $11 I ALLOWING THE WRIT PETTTION WTHOUT COSTS I I