Kandula Ramireddy v. The Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District

The Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District At Ongole, Prakasam District, and others. .. Respondents

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.13223 OF 2004 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in maintaining the rowdy-sheet against the petitioner in Markapur Town Police Station, Prakasam District, as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner states that he is a resident of Markapur and hails from a family with political background. On 24-5-1988 a history-sheet was opened against him since he was implicated in some criminal cases. Subsequently, on 22-6-1988 the 4th respondent – Sub-Inspector of Police, Markapur Town P.S. converted the history- sheet into rowdy-sheet. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that being an active member of a political party, he was involved in some criminal cases, but states that all the said cases ended in acquittal and that no criminal case is pending against him as on today. In the circumstances, he made several representations to the respondents requesting to close the rowdy-sheet against him.

However, the respondents failed to respond. Hence, this writ petition seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in maintaining the rowdy-sheet since 16 years is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to Standing Order No.742 of A.P. Police Standing Orders. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, it is stated that the petitioner is involved in many criminal cases before and after opening of the rowdy- sheet on 22-6-1988 in the Markapur Town P.S. Altogether, 20 such crime numbers were furnished. However, it is stated that except Cr.No.74/95 registered under Section 120-B of I.P.C. read with Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 34 of A.P. Prohibition Act which is pending vide S.C.No.67 of 2002 on the file of the District & Sessions Court, Ongole, all other cases ended in acquittal. It is further explained as under : “In the Markapur Municipality area, there are two factions in between Reddy community and Muslim community.

The petitioner is the ring leader of Reddy community and another Rowdy Sheeter Shaik Usman (Rowdy No.536) is the leader of Muslims and they are leading groups the Markapur Town. The petitioner and Shaik Usman are maintaining some of the rowdy sheeters in their groups and they are followers of the said leaders. Even now, his activities are extending in the town and now and then and the public could not dare to complain against the petitioner. (A) I submit that the petitioner is habituated to committing Rowdism in the town, recently, the petitioner was arrested in Cr.No.17/04 u/S.110 (E) Cr.P.C. and on 9.3.2004 produced him before the Court of Revenue Divisional Officer, Markapur vide MC.No.34/04. But the respondent has not been attending to the Revenue Divisional Officer Court, Markapur. (B) The petitioner is habituated to committing Rowdism in Markapur town. It came to my notice that he has been creating nuisance in the town, but the public could not dare to complain against him as he is young, dreadful and having political background and he is a menace to the public life.

I submit that it is necessary to keep a watch on the movements of the petitioner as the petitioner may commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility, or may do any wrongful act and it is possible only Rowdy sheet against the petitioner is continued.” The petitioner has not filed any Reply affidavit contradicting the above version of the fourth respondent in the counter-affidavit. The Apex Court as well as this Court on number of occasions held that rowdy- sheets cannot be opened against any individual in a casual and mechanical manner and that dubbing a person as an habitual offender and to open a rowdy-sheet is not sufficient. The Courts have reiterated the principle of law that the important element that has to be seen to continue a rowdy-sheet is whether the acts committed by a person will have a tendency to disturb public peace and tranquility. In EJAZ vs. GOVT.OF A.P. this Court having considered the scope of Standing Order No.742 of A.P. Police Standing Orders held that surveillance and monitoring the moments of persons against whom a rowdy-sheet is opened should be proportionate and commensurate to reasonable apprehension and with a view to prevent commission of a crime which may result in breach of peace.

Similar view has been expressed in MOHD. QUADEER vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE. In S. SATYANARAYANA vs. STATE OF A.P. having reviewed all the relevant cases with regard to opening and retention of history-sheets / rowdy-sheets the principles of law have been enumerated in detail. A Division Bench of this Court in PUTTAGUNTA PASI vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE held that rowdy-sheet cannot be opened in a mechanical manner and that mere figuring of name of a person in two crimes is not sufficient to hold him an habitual offender. In the case on hand, the specific allegation against the petitioner is that he is a habitual offender and an anti-social element. On the other hand, the case of the petitioner is that he was falsely implicated in various criminal cases which ultimately ended in acquittal. However, it is stated that except Cr.No.74/95 registered under Section 120-B of I.P.C. read with Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 34 of A.P. Prohibition Act which is pending vide S.C.No.67 of 2002 on the file of the District & Sessions Court, Ongole, all other cases ended in acquittal.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly in the absence of necessary material, to conclusively establish that no cases are pending against the petitioner as on today except S.C.No.67 of 2002 on the file of the District & Sessions Court, Ongole, I am inclined to record any finding on the said issue. Instead, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to review the case of the petitioner in the light of the principles of law laid down by the Courts from time to time and to pass appropriate orders with regard to the justifiability or otherwise of continuing the rowdy-sheet against the petitioner as on today. Such exercise shall be completed and appropriate orders be passed in accordance with law which shall be supported by reasons thereto as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of this order and the same shall be communicated to the petitioner. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. __________________ 5th October, 2005.