Khaja Samiyuddin @ Nadeem v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition Under Article 226 ot lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated 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 IVANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents in opening Rowdy Sheet against the Petitioner pending before the Respondent No.4, Nalgonda I Town Police Station, Nalgonda District, without following due process of Law, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia, besides violation of this Hon'ble Court directions and consequently direct the Respondents to close the Rowdy Sheet against the Petitioner and not to interfere into the Petitioner's life and liberty. |.A.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 to close the Rowdy Sheet against the Petitioner pending before the Responderrt No.4, Nalgonda lTown Police Station, Nalgonda District, and not to interfere in':o life and liberty as well as day to day affairs of the Petitioner, pending disposal of main writ petition. Counsel for ttre Petitioner : SRI M.A.H.AMZAD Counsel for ttre Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following ORDER -P THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 6787 of 2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filecl seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not closing the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner, without following due process of law, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to close the rowdy sheet against the petitioner'

2. Heard Mr. M.A.Haroon Amjad, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the resPondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the permanent resident of Nalgonda Town and respondent No.4 had registered a case against the petitioner and others uid.e FIR No.315 0f 2023 dated 15. 10.2023 for the offences punishable under Section s 147, 3O7, 148 IPC r/w Section 149 of IPC and subsequently filed Charge Sheet uide PRC.No.19 of 2024 and added Section 25(1) (b) of the Arms Act and the sarne is pending trial before the learned Judicial First class Magistrate, Nalgonda. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that respondent No.4 had registered a petty case uide CC'No'O9 of 2018, on the file of learned Judicial First class Magistrate, / 1 ?.. Nalgonda, wherein the learned trial Court had imposed a fine of Rs.2000/- for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and Rs.SOOl- for the offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC uide its order dated 17.o9.2o19, '*,hich is a non contested case. Except th,= aforesaid case, no other case is pending against the petitioner as on today. Since the respondents Police are regularly calling the petitioner to the Police Station and harassing on the alleged ground of rowdy-sheet, petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respo:rdent Nos.l to 4, basing on the counter filed by responder.t No.3, submits that the respondents are implementing the interirn order, dated 06.03.2025, passed by this Court. He further strbmits that as per the available records, tl-re petitioner r,r,as involrred in crime No.315 of 2023 registered on ls.Lo.2o23 for the offl:nces punishable under Sections l4T, 148, 3or Ipc r/w Section 1'19 IPC and was facing trial in s.c.No.93 of 2025 before the learn,:d trial court. Moreover, respondent No.4 had also registered two cases against him i.e., C.C.No.o9 of 2ol9 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First class, Nalgonda, pertaining, to crime No.275 of 2olz registered for the offences punishable under Sections 34r, 324 lpc r/w section 34 Ipc, was \ \. ended in conviction and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,OOO /- for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and was further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.50O/- for the offence punishable under Section 341 IPC and C.C.No.593 of 2O2O pertaining to Crime No.9 | of 2O2O registered for the oflences punishable under Sections 188,269,27O IPC, Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, L897 and Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, was ended in conviction and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Since there is every possibility of petitioner's involvement in other cognizable offences and in order to keep surveillance over his activities rowdy-sheet has been opened against the petitionet uide proceedings C.No.t4l/SDPO-N 12023, dated O4.Il -2023, and as per the A.P. Police Manual Order No.6O 1 as well as Circular No.2 l72lC|3/SCRB ICID ITS /22, dated 22.07 -2022, issued by the Director General of Police, the respondent authorities are following due procedure in opening and continuing/renewing the rowdy/suspect/history sheet. It is further submitted that the Police are not calling or threatening the petitioner.

5. It is categorical submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that except the aforementioned single case no other case is pending against the petitioner, which has not been disputed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. 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 Principal Secretary, Home Department, Hyderabad and othersl ',r,herein 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 an accused in two cases would not be sufficient to characterize a person as a habitual offender. For better appreciati,rn, the relevant paras No.23, 24 and 26 are extracted hereunder "23. As stated aboue, as per Standing Order 6O1 of the A.P. Police Manual, for opening and maintenance of rowclg sheet, a person against whorn the sanrc was issu,zd should habitually commit, attempt to contntit or abet tlte commfssion of offences inuoluing a breach of peace, disturbance to pubtic order and securitg. Fufther, as lrcld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijag Narain Singh's case (2 supra), the expression'habitually' utould mean 'repeatedlg' or 'persistentlg' implging a thread of | zozL (4) ALr'36 (TS) continuity, stringing together similar repetitiue acts, and a single act or omission would not characteri.z'e an act as 'habitual'. TLLz Hon'ble Apex Court was of the opinion that to qualify as a 'habit', a person must haue grown accustomed to leading a llfe of crime, whereby it would be q. force of habi| inherent or latent, in an indiuidual with a criminal instinct, uith a criminal disposition of mind, thot mokes him dangerous to soclety in general. In Majid Babu's case (6 supra), bg refeoing to Standing Order No.742, it was held that two instqnces of inuoluement in criminal cases utould not make a person a 'habituql offender' and that atleast more than tuo instances should be present before a person can be descibed as e. habituol offender. Rowdy sheet could not be opened against an tndiuidual in a casual and mechanical manner and due care and caution should be taken by ttrc police before characterizing a person as a rowdy. Figuring q.s an accused in tuo cases would not be sufficient to characteize q person as a habitual offender.

24. In uiew of the qboue said taw laid doutn and in uieut of the aboue sttid discussion, the petitioners krcrein were inuolued in the aboue said two crimes. one crime has ended in acquittaL As orl today, only one case i.e PRC.No.3o7 of 2o2o is pending against the petitioners heretn. Thus, the requirement of inuotuement of in at least more than two cases for inferring that the petitioners u)ere habituat offend"ers w,as not established.. Thus opening of rowdy sheets in the name of the petitioners fs therefore contrary to the procedure taid, dowrt under A.p. police Manual a.nd. procedure laid. dowrt in the Judgments supra. 26. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. a.nd" the respc,ndents are directed to close the rowd.g sheets being' maintained in the names o/ the petitioners on the file of Banjara Hitis potice station, Hyd.erabad. There shall be no order as to cos/s.,,

6. From the above, it could be culied out that for inferring a person as a habitual offender, his involvement in at least more than tviro c;lses is required. Further, as per Standing order 60 1 of the A.P. Pclice 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 Crime No.315 of 2023, on the file of Nalgonda I Town Police Station, Hyderabad and was facing trial in S.C.No.93 of 2025, before the learned trial Court' Except aforementioned single case registered against the petitioner, no other case is pending against the petitioner. Thus, opening of rowdy-sheet and continuing the salne 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' 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to close the rowdy-sheet opened against the petitioner. However, it is made clear that this order does not preclude the respondent police authorities to initiate appropriate action on the petitioner, if he indulges in any activity "vhich against the public tranquilitY- Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. No costs /TRUE COPY// To

1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, S at Hyderabad. 2. The SuPerintendent of Police, Nalgonda District, Telangana State SD/- c. DEE' STANT RE CTION OFFICER State of'Telangana Telangana State.

3. The Deputy-Superintendent of police, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District, 4. The stzrtion House officer, Na.lgold_a I Town police station, Nalgonda District - -' -' 5. Two COs to GP FOR HOME, Hlgh Court for the State ot fefangini at 6. One CC to SRI M.A.H.AMZAD, Advocate tOpUCl 7. Two CE) Copies Hyderarad. [OUT] SA \y -tH E S Te I 2 I I I 2026 * ( * HIGH COIURT DATED:2511112025 ORDER WP.No.6787 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. @ a ah e1