High Court · 2025

Judgment

4. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad Police Commissionerate, Telangana State The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Nampally Telangana State The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Nampally Division, Hyderabad, Telangana State

5. The lnspector of Police, Nampally Police Station, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stat'ed in the affidavit filed therewith, the- High Court may be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondent No.S in opening Rowdy Sheet against the Petitioner, without following due process of Law,as against the principles of natural justice and in violation of illegal, arbitrary Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia, besides violation of this Honble Court directions and consequently direct the Respondents to close the Rowdy Sheet against the Petitioner pending before the Respondent No.S and not to interfere into the Petitione/s life and liberty. -and lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the sth Respondents to consider the Petitioner pending before the Respondent No.5. and not to interfere into life and liberty as well as day to day affairs of the Petitioner, pending disposat of main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI MD.FASIUDDIN Counset for the Respondents: ASST. Gp FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER ,! n ( Writ Petttion No.4O41 of 2O2S ORDER: . Heard Sri Md. Fasiuddin, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government pleader for Home appearing for respondents. with their consent, this writ petition is being taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

2. This writ petition is filed seeking the follorving prayer: "...Declaring tle action of the resporui"ent No.S in opening Routdg Sheet against the petittoner, without following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary and agatnst the principles of natural justice and in uiolation of Artictes 14 and. 21 of tLLe Constitution of India besides uiolation of directions of this Court and consequential praAer to direct the respondents to close the Rowd.y Steet against th.e petitioner pend.ing before the respondent No.S and not to interfere into the petitioner's life and libertg...,,

3. Facts in brief as stated are that the petitioner was implicated in crime No. L94 of 2otg registered at Nampally Police Station, Hyderabad under sections 3oz, L4g r/w section 149 of IPC, and a charge sheet was filed against him. The case was numbered as S.c.N o.r24 of 2021 on the file of the IV Additinal Metropolitan sessions Judge, Hyderabad. t 2 The petitioner submits that in the said case, he was acquitted uide juclgment dated 2g.o1.2o24 and that despite his acquittal, the police authorities continue to maintain a rowdy . sheet and suspect sheet against him at Nampally police Station, l{yderabad and the continued maintenance of such a record against him is illegal, arbitrary and violative of F-undamental Rights under Articles 14 and 2r of constitution of India. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 4- In a counter filed by respondent No.4, it is stated that the petitioner along with four others were invorved in crime No'194 of 2019 under Sections 3OT, l4g r/w. Section 149 of OPC at Nampally Police Station, Hyd.erabad, all the accused lvere arrested on 01.08.2019 and sent to judicial custody and later charge sheet was filed uid.e p.R.C.No.4O3 of 2019 and on committal it was numbered as S.C.No. 124 of 2O2l and the learned Sessions Judge uid.e jud,gment dated 2g.O1.2O24 acquitted the accused. It is submitted that the petitioner was involved in the retaliatory violence case and was frequently indulging i, violent criminal acts and creating panic in the public and disturbing the public peace and tranquility in the limits of Nampally Police station; it is submitted that as he is \ 'i&1. -:.G.. ;ffue&ta;. 3 young and a potential unsocial element, a constant.watch is required over his activities. It is further submitted that in view of the rowdy elements attached to him, the Additional Commissioner of Police uide No.Addl.CP/Crimes & SIT/CamplHyd/24lll2O2O, dated O3.O7.2O2O directed to open rowdy sheet against the persons who are involving in retaliatory case and accordingly, respondent No.5 submitted proposals dated 24.O8.2O2O to respondent No.4 to accord permission to open rowdy sheet against the petitioner in order to contain his activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public peace and tranquillity. It is submitted that respondent No.4 issued orders uid.e No.lLgT / O.W / ACP- SFBI2O2O dated 24.08.2020 which accorded permission and accordingly rowdy sheet was opened against the petitioner.

5. It is submitted that on 01.08.2020, the petitioner was bound over before the Special Executive Magistrate for keeping good behaviour for a period of one y€tr, respondent No.4 taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is young, energetic, active and potential unsocial element and requires close surveillance to control his nefarious activities and to put an end. to such activities and in view of the powers vested upon him under the provisions of the Order No.6OO-1, 4 Clause-B of A.P.P.M., Part-I and Volume-Il, ordered to open and maintain a rowdy sheet against the petitioner and directed respondent No.S to maintain a close surveillance and . a regular check on the movements of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the Director General of police, Telangana State issued Circular further No.2 17 2 / C | 3/ SCRB/ CID / TS / 22, dated 22.02 .2022 to follow due procedure in opening and continuing/renewing the rowdy/suspect/history sheets, and the concerned police are following the procedure as A.P.P.M Orders 599 to 602 as well as above circular and reviewing the case and need to keep surveillance over all the rowdy sheeters including the petitioner and that view of the public interest, it is necessary to continue the rowdy sheet against the petitioner. 6. Learned Assistant Governmeirt pleader for fairly submits that as on date there are no cases pelhding against the petitioner and that rowdy sheet is opened only for the purpose of keeping watch in view of the public interest.

7. At this juncture, it is not out of place to refer the order rendered by this Court in the case of Mansoor Shah Khan and others Vs. State of Telangana rep. by its / 5 Principal Secretary, Home Department, Hyderabad and othersr wherein it is held that rowdy-sheet could not be opened against an individual in a casual and mechanical manner and due care and caution should be taken by the Police before characterizing a person as a rowdy and figuring as €rn accused in two cases would not be sufficient to characterize a person as a habitual offender. For better appreciation, the relevant paras No.23, 24 and 26 are extracted hereunder. "23. As stated aboue, as per Standing Order 601 of the A.P. Police Manua\ for opening and maintenance of rowdg sheet, a person against whom the same utas issued should habituallg commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences involving a breach of peace, disfurbance to public order and securitg. F\trtlrcq a,s lrcld bg the Hon'ble Apex Court ti Vtiag Narain Singh's case (2 supra), the expression 'habituallg' ulould mean 'repeatedlg' or 'persistentlg' implying a thread of continuitg, stinging togetlrcr similar repetitiue acts, and a single act or omisston utould not chnracterize an act as 'habifual'. The Hon'ble Apex Court utas of the opinion that to qualifu as a'habit', a person must haue groun acanstomed to leading a W of crtme, wherebg it would be aforce of ha.btt, ' zozt @) ALT 36 (TS) \ 6 (1 inherent or latent, in an indiuidual utith a criminal instinct, with a criminal disposition of mind, that makes him d.angerous to society in general.

24. In uiew of the aboue said. taw taid down and in uiew of tlrc aboue sajd dlscus sion, the petitioners herein were inuolued. in the aboue said tuo crimes- One crime has end.ed in acquittal. As on tod.ag, onlg one case i.e PRC.No.307 of 2020 is pending against the petitioners herein. Thus, the requirement of inuoluement of in at least more than tu)o cases for infening that the petitioners were habitual offenders was not established. Thus opening of rowdy sheefs in the name of the petitioners rs therefore contrary b the procedure laid. down under A.p. potice Itlanual and. procedure laid. doun in the Judgments supra-

26. Therefore, the uit petition is ailowed. and the respondents are directed. to close the rowdy sheefs being maintained in the n,mes of the petitioners on the file of Banjara Hills porice station, Hgd.erabad. There sha, be no order as fo cosrs. D 8' Learne. Assistant Government pleader for fairry submits that as on date there are no cases pending against the petitioner and that rowdy sheet is opened only for the purpose of keeping watch in view of the pubric interest. 9. From the above, it could be culled out that for inferring a person as a habituar offender, his invorvement -- i I \ \ 7 in at least more than two cases is required. Further, as per Standing Order 601 of the A.P. Police Manual, for opening and maintenance of rowdy sheet, a person against whom the same was issued should habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences involving a breach of peace, disturbance to public order and security. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner is involved in F.I.R.No.194 of 2Ol9 on the file of the Nampally Police Station, Hyderabad. Thus, opening of rowdy-sheet and continuing the same against the petitioner is contrary to the procedure laid down under A.P. Police Manual and against the law laid down by this Court in the case of Mansoor Shah Khan (cited supra) therefore, the rowdy-sheet opened against the petitioner is liable to be closed.

10. Having considered the above facts and circumstances, since there is no case pending against the petitioner, rowdy sheet against the petitioner cannot be continued and accordingly, respondent No.4 is directed to close the rowdy sheet on the petitioner. However, it is made clear that if petitioner is involved in any other crime, respondent 8 authorities are at liberty to take action against the petitioner strictly in accordance with law. 11. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/- AHMED ABDULLAH KHAN ASSTSTANTFEGTSTRAR t/<> SEC+T6N oFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary Home Department, Secretariat, Telangana State, Hyderabad

2. The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad Police Commissionerate, Telangana State

3. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Nampally Telangana State 4. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Nampally Division, Hyderabad, Telangana State

5. The lnspector of Police, Nampally police Station, Hyderabad. 6. One CC to SRI MD FAS|UDD|N, Advocate. tOpUCl 7. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 8. Two CD Copies. BSK HIGH COURT DATED:2911012025 totr- n ,.s TE ; * * 3 ORDER WP.No.4041 ot 2025 DISPOSIN G c F s s =i r \q "(