K. Thirupathi Reddy v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

This writ petition is filed seeking mandamus to declare the action of respondents 2 to 5 in opening and continuing rowdy sheet against the petitioner on the file of Maddur Police Station, Mahabubnagar District as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioner that he is an agriculturist and was also Mandal President of Maddur from Telugu Desam Party. It is stated that he was falsely implicated in a crime registered for the alleged offence under Section 353 IPC which is pending trial in C.C.No.97 of 2006 before

the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodangal. Based on the registration of the said crime, rowdy sheet was opened against him and his photograph was also affixed on the notice board of the police station, terming him as a rowdy-sheeter. It is the grievance of the petitioner that only basing on his alleged involvement in the lone crime referred above, rowdy sheet was opened against him, illegally. The 5th respondent, Sub-Inspector of Police, Maddur P.S., has filed counter-affidavit. In the counter- affidavit, while denying the allegations of the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner is a rowdy element and is involved in the following crimes:

Cr.No.4 of 2011, for the offences under Sections 353 and 504 IPC. It is the allegation in the said crime that the petitioner entered chambers of Mandal Revenue Officer, Maddur Mandal demanded release of National Family the persons Benefit Fund thereby recommended by him, obstructing discharging his legitimate duties. He is convicted for a period of two years vide C.C.No.149/2001. MRO

Cr.No.34 of 2001 registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 307, 332, 333, 353, 427, 188 read with Section 149 IPC. It is the allegation in the said crime that the petitioner and his followers formed themselves into unlawful assembly and attacked the local MLA and pelted stones at him. The said case ended in acquittal vide S.C.No.459 of 2002.

Cr.No.17 of 2004 registered under Section 108 Cr.P.C., wherein the petitioner and 29 others were bound over for good behaviour for a period of six months.

Cr.No.10 of 2006 for the offences under Sections 352, 353 and 506 IPC. In the said crime, it is the allegation against the petitioner that he came to P.S., Maddur and questioned the watch Home Guard No.497 and asked him to produce the General Diary and when he was requested to wait till the Asst. Sub- Inspector comes, he turned violent and threatened the Home Guard and beat him. The same is pending trial vide C.C.No.97 of 2006 before the JFCM, Kodangal. It is stated that in view of the involvement of the petitioner in the aforesaid cases, rowdy sheet was opened against him. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. Though it is the case of the petitioner he was implicated in a criminal case, based on which rowdy sheet was opened against him, it is to be seen that petitioner is accused in four crimes. He was convicted for a period of two years in Cr.No.4 of 2001. He is also accused in Cr.Nos.34 of 2001 and Cr.No.10 of 2006. Further, in Cr.No.17 of 2004 he was bound over for good behaviour for a period of six months. Though it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is acquitted of the charges framed against him in Cr.No.4 of 2001 on appeal filed by him, there is no material to substantiate the same. In view of the involvement of the petitioner in a series of crimes in the years 2001, 2004 and 2006, I do find any illegality in the action of the respondents in opening rowdy sheet against him. However, thereafter, there is no indication of involvement of the petitioner in any further crimes after the year 2006. In the circumstances, I dispose of the writ petition permitting the petitioner to make a representation before the 3rd respondent, seeking closure of rowdy sheet opened against him, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, enclosing copy of the orders acquitting him from the crimes referred above by the respective Courts. If any such representation is made, I am sure, the 3rd respondent will consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the representation of the petitioner. No order as to costs. ______________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) March 29, 2012 Kvsn