Mohammed Bin Abdullah v. 'l . The State of Telangana

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 a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in calling the Petitioner to the Police Station and confined them in the Police Station and monitoring their movements under the guise of rowdy sheet even after the Petitioner were acquitted in all criminal cases as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, unwarranted and contrary to the Police Standing Order apart from violating Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents to close rowdy sheet against the Petitioner and not to harass them in any manner. !.A.NO:1 OF 2025 Petition Under Section 151 cpc praying that in the ci.r umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondents. No. 3 and 4 and their subordine:es not to call the Petitioner to the Porice station and harass them under the g.rise of rowdy sheet and for enquiry pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI S.GANESH Counsel forthe Respondents : AGp FOR HOME The Court made the following ORDER F THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.1O4O1 of 2025 ORDER: Questioning thc action of the respondents in calling the petitioner to the Police Station and confining them in the Police Station and monitoring their movements under the guise of rowdy sheet even afLer the pe tit ioncr was acquitte d in all criminai cases, petidoner tiled the present writ petition with a consequential prayer to direct the respondents to close the rowdy-sheet against the petitioner.

2. Thc learned counscl for the pctil.ioner u'ould submits that crime was registered uide Fllt No.16 ol 2O20 on thc file of Rein Bazar Police Sadon, Hyderabad and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was hled and thc samc is Jrcnding beforc the VIII Additional Chief Metropolilan Magistratc at Nampall)', t]yderabad- trxcept the aforesaid case, no other case is pending against the petitioner as on today. Since the responde nts Police arc regularly calling the petitioner to the police Station anct harassing on thc allcged grounds of rowdy-sheet, petitioner filcd t hc presL n t r|rit pt t it ion.

3. On the other hand, Assistanl Commissioner of Police, Mirchowk Division, I lydcrabacl, filcd counter affrdavit, inter olio, stating that the petitioner wzrs totally involve d in 17 cases, they are: 1) Crime No.179 of 2004 for lhe offences under Section 506 of IPC Rein Bazar Police Station, Hyderabad- The case ended in acquittal vide C.C. No.417 of 2005, 2) Crime No-68 ol 2OO5 lor the offences under Sections 448, 506 of IPC; Section 4(3) ol A I,. Y \ Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act 1982 of Rein Bazar Police Station Hyderabad. The case ended in acquittai vide C.C. No. lg3 1 of 2005. ;) Crime No.69 of 2005 for the offence under Section 353 of IpC oi ' lcin Bazar Police Station, Hyderabad. The case endcd in convicLiort r i [c C.C. No.718 of 20O5 for three months and hne of Rs.50O/-, 4) Cr;r rr: No.70 of 2OO5 for the offence undcr Sections 506, 384 o[ IpCl S: :tion 4(3) of A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act 1982 I?cin Ilaz r Police Station, Hyderabad. The case ended in acquittal vide C.C. ,l r.611 of 2005, 5) Crime No. 77 of 2OO5 for Lhe offenccs Undcr Scctr: -rs 506 of IPC of Rein Bazar Police Station, Hyderabad.'lhe casc endc< r n acquittal vide C.C. No. 613/2005, 6) Crime No. 1 11 of 2005 tor t.r : ollcnces Under Sections 447, lO9 of IPC of SanLosh Nagar Police St: ion, Hyderabad. The case ended in acquittal, 7) Crimc No. 97 of 20( I for the olfences Under Sections 365, 5O6 of IPC of Santosh Police St:: ion, I [yderabad. The case ended in acquittal vide C.C. No. 1C3/2007 r1 Lted 02.03.2009, 8) Crime No. 6O of 2OO5 for thc offences Under S: rtions 384, 342, 365, 506 of IPC oI Kanchan [3agh l)olicc Station, Fh.rl rabad. The case ended in acquittal vide C.C. No.279 l2OO7, 9) Crin:t No. 67 of 2006 for the offences Under Sections 448, 384, 506 R/w. I a of IPC of Rein Bazar Police Station, Hydcrabad. The case ended in:t qLrittal vidc C.C. No. 398/2OO7, 10) Crime No. 2 of 2OO7 for the offenccs Under Sectrons 324, 506 of IPC of Rein Bazar police Sta[ion, Hyderabad. The case ended in compromise vide C.C. No. 2ZO l2OO7 Ctt n:d 05.08.20O8, 11) Crime No. 68 of 2OO7 for thc oflcnces Unde r ',S: :t ior-rs 447, 506 .,) R/w.34 of IPC of Santosh Police Station, Hyderabad. The case ended in acquittal vide C.C. No. L424/2OO7 dated 0L.06.2012, i2) Crime No. 95 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 143, 151, 3a1, 355 R/w. 149 of IPC; Section 7 (1) Crl Amed Act of Santosh Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad. The case ended in acquiLLal vide C.C. No. 219/2005 dated

04.OA.2O|1, 13) Crime No. 97 of 2009 for the offences U/s. 143, 151, 341, 352, 355 R/w. 149 of II'C; Scctior-r 7 (1) Crl Amed Act of Santosh Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad. The case ended in acquittal vide C.C. No.217 l2OO5 dated O9.04.2Ot0, 14) Crime No. 86 of 2011 of Rein Bazar Poltce Station, Hyderabad. The casc ended in acquittal vide S.C. No. 49 12014 dated, 19.01.2016, 15) Crime No. 55 of 2011 for the offences Under Sections 302 R/lr,. 34 IPC ol Bhavani Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad and the case ended in acquittal vide S.C. No. 4OT l2Ol3 dated 28.II.2014, I6) Crime No. 16 o[ 2O2O for the offences under Secl-ions 420 IPC; Scction 12 (1) (b) of lndian Passport Act, 1967 of Rein Bazar Policc Station, I lydcrabad. The case is pending trial vide C.C. No. IO959 12021 and l7) Crime No. 1i4 of 2020 for the offences Under 'sections 188, 269 of IPC; Section 51 (b) of NDM Act of Rein Bazar Police Station, Flydcrabad. The case cnded in admission vide C.C. No. 537012020 dated O9.O2.2O23 on the ltle of the Hon'ble VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nampally Hyderabad with a line of Rs. 10OO/-. Tl is further submits that the petitioner is an active rowdy sheeter. As thc pctiLioncr was creaLing a nuisance to the general public and no one was willing to come forward to lodge a 4 complaint against him, the police opened and r r rintained a rowdy sheet to monitor his activities and to curtail his un Ir rvful conduct Since there is a possibility ol petitioner,s rrL. cognizable offences and in order to keep surveillanr:, rowdy sheet has been opened against the petitior and it has been renewed up to 31. l2.2O2S as t Manuai Order No.6O 1 issued by the Director G: follow due procedure in opening and conLinrr rowdy/ suspect/ history shcet. It is. further submrtt are not visiting the petitioner,s house ancl not r privacy. c,lve ment in other ovcr his activities :r on !3O.O1 .2025 :r the A. P. Police reral of Police to ng/ renes,ing the cl lhaL the Police truding r.r,ith his

4. Heard the learned counse I for the partics, per rsccl the material on record and with their consent, Lhis writ pe[ition i.'s clisposed of.

5. It is categorical submission of the learnr:rr co.rnscl for thc petitioner that except thc aforementionecl one cas(_, no other case is registered nor. pending against the pctitioner, u,hi rr has not been disputed by Lhe learned Assistant Government I,l rader for Home. At this juncture, it is not out of praee to refer the :.cler renclered by this Court in the case of Mansoor Shah Khan and rthers Vs. State of Telangana rep. by its principal Secretary, Hcrre Department, Hyderabad and othersr wherein it is held [haL rora.cL. _sheet could not be opened against an individual in a casual and m,: :hanical manner ' zoz r 1+1 aLr to ltsy l and due care and cauLioll stroutd b(i Laken by.thc Police before characterizing a person as a rowdy and flguring as an accused in two cases would not be sufhcient to charac terize 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 Stancting Order 601 of the A.P. Police Manual, fo' opening and maintenance of routlg sheet' a person against uhom the satne wos Lssuecl shoulct habitually commil, attempt to commil or abel Lhe cornmission of offences inuoluing a breach of peace' disturbonce to publtc ord.er oncl secuiLg FurLher' as held bg the Hon'bfe Apex Court in Vtlag NorcLin Singh's case (2 supro), the expression 'hobltuallq' ttould mean 'repeatedty' or 'persisLerLtlli' tmplgirtg a thread of continuitg, stinging together similar repetitiue octs' and a single acl or otnis'sion would not characterize an act os 'habilual'' 'fhc llon'blc Apex Court utas of the opinion that to qu (tli|'! as a 'ltabit ' a person must haue qrou)n occustometl to leatlirLltr u ltfe of cime, wherebg it woutd be o force of habit' inherent or latent, in an indiuidual ttLith a cr[minol instinct, tuith a cnminal disposition of mind' that makes him dctngerous to societA in general' ln Majid l)abu's csse (6 supra)' bg referring to Standing Order No 742' it utas held thot tLUo instances of inuoluement in cnminot cases uould not make a person a'habLtuot offender' and Lhat atleast more thon tLUo instances slrculd be present before a persott can be ciescnbed as a habitual offender ' Rowdg slrcet could not be opened against an ind-lukiuat in a casuc.L anc) mechanical mctnner and due care and- caution should' be taken bg the *F], ----;- \ police be-fore characterizinq a person as c. .cttutly. Figuing as an occus, d in lu)o cases tuoul I t,ot be su.fficienl to characterize a person as a k lbituat offender.

24. In uieut of the aboue said lou laid d.otutt uieut of lhe aboue saful discrlsslon , the peti he-rein uere inuolued in the aboue said tuo One crime ltas ended in. a.cquittal. As or onlu one case i.e PRC.No.307 of 2020 is .; against the pe_titioners herein. the requirement of tnuoluement of in at leos than tu,to cases for infering that the peii u;ere habitual offenders u)as not estr",.) Thus opentng of rotudg sheets in the nanu: petitioners is therefore contrary to the prL> latd dotun. uncler A.p. police Manual and. pro, laid doun in the Judgments supra. and in ioners rimes. r,oday, ttding Thus, t(rners tshed. cf the

26. '[herefore, the uit petition is allotued. c..t c]. th.e respondents are direc\ed to close tlrc rotudq . L,.eets being maintained in the na.mes oJ'the petit.ion ,rs on the ftle of Banjaro I-IiLts potice Statton, Hyrkt tbacl. There sha.ll be no ord.er a.s lo cosls. ,,

6. From the above, it could bc culled otrt that for i rferring a person as a habitual gffcnder, his involvement in at least m.t e than tr;r,o cases is required. Furthcr, as per Standing Order 60 1 c - the A.p. police Manual, for opcnrng ancl maintenancc of rowch. ;heet, a pcrson against rvhom thc samc \,,as issued should habituall.. rommit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences invol ing a breach of peace, disturbance to public ordcr anci security. [, he instant case, it is an admittcd fact that the pctitioner is involvecl i C.C. No.10959 :.r i t('+. r -..:-:fl:n 1 1 of 2O2l on the file of VIII AddiLionat Chief Me tropolitan Magistrate at NampallY, HYderabad and the same is pending- Except one aforementioned case registered against the petitioner' no other case is pe[itioner. pending 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 thc law Iaid down by this Court in the case of Mansoor Shah Khan (citcd supra) therefore' the rowdy-sheet opened against against the petitioner is liable to be cLosed' IS disposed of directing the

7. AccordinglY, this writ Petitlon respondents to close thc rowdy-sht:ct opcned against the petitioner However, it is made clear that this order does not preclude the respondent Police authority to initiate appropriate action on the petitioncr, iI he indulgcs in any acrivily wtrich is against the public tranquility. 'lhere shall bc no ordcr as to costs As a sequel, misccllaueous applications, it anY Pending, shall stand clgsed ,/TRUE COPY'/ D,. . SRINIV ISTANT T?I.EERRX. SECTION OFFICER

1. The PrinciPal Secretary, Home DeP of Telangana To \

2. s State Buitding missione The Com d Hvd Comm DePuty The House he Station T GP FO CCs to Two ouTl H erabad. I CCtoSR S.G 6. One CD CoPies 7. Two J, 4 5 artment, erabad at HYd r of Police' HYderabad, Ro issioner of Re officer' t, RHOM ANESH' Advocate [OPUCI Police' in Baza High Co ce at Secretariat Havi ad No.12' Baniara Hills South Zone. HYderabad erabad. r, Hyd r the Sta urt fo te of Telangana at SA BS HE Sle t( 3 1 oEt 2I}25 I )_r.s z C)x * HIGH COURT DATED:1 911112025 ORDER WP.No.10401 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. J .)* G)