Kadaparthi Narsing @ Mukka Narsi v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the r>ir:umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court nra,r be pleased to direct the Respondent Police not to call the petitioner to their rer;pective police stations and thereby not to interfere with the life and liberty of the Pr:tilioner, by considering the Petitioner's Representation dl.O5l07l2O25 pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI C.H.JAYAKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI M.SRINIVAS, AGP FOtt HOME The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.SHRAVANKUMAR N VVI(IT PETITION No. 222 of 2025 ORDER Heard learned counsel for the pe tioner and M.Srinivas, learned d Assistant Govcrnment Pleader for Home ap earing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 L !' With their conscnt this writ pctition is tak up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

2. This-writ petition is filed seeking follo[ving prayer:- "lo dtclare tlrc nctiott of the responden against the pe titioner\'4nd continuing arbih'ary and aioLatioe of the lnru laid Court nnrl consequently direct the re fortfuoitlt." n opening a Rorudy Sheet same ns illegal, improper, n by this Honourable ndents to close the same

3. Brief facts stated in this writ petition re that the petitioner was falsely I implicated in several criminal cases and the laid cases ended in acquittal. lt is subnritted that z,ide Judgment dateci 19.02 020 in C.C.No.440 of 2015, the t Learned X Additional Chief Metropolitan Migistrate, sentenced'to pay a {ine of Its.250/- in default simple imprisonment or 02 days for the offence under I Section 309 IPC. It is f urther submitted that he said offence of commission of 1 suicidc was committed only due to the polic pressure q

4. Learned counsel fot the petitioner su lamits that the petitioner had paid the fine amount and is presently eking out his Iivelihoocl L,'r tloing brrsiness and without involving in any offences- The {ase of the petitioner is that in the year 2013, as pcr the proieedings of the sistant Comr':nissioner of Police, I ,) previously Mahankali Division antl presently, cioPalapuram Divisiolr, Hyderabad vide C.No.356 / O\ i / ACp-GpLpR/2013 dated 18.03.2013 tras opened a rowdy sheet and asked the petitioner to rcport before the respective police stations as and when rctluired a.d since thcn, the petitioner was complying with tl-re directio.s as contemplated in the pr,ocecclings of rowdy sheet. Learned counsel for the pctitio,er further subrni.s that every year for the festivals of Bo,alu, Ganesh Imrnersion and at tht'time of Elections, the respondent Ncs.4 and 5 asking him to attend their re;pective police stations for bind over, though he informed the concerned polic,: that he was acquitted in all the above matters and that there are no pendin;3 cases against him, despite of the same, he is being called to their rcsper.tive p.lice stations. Hence, the petitioner filed this vrrit petition seeking c.ir,:ctio. to respo.dent Police to close thc rowdy sheJtspendiniS against hirn. ' 5 With respect to the above, Ieat.ned Assistatrt Government plcader for Home appearing for respondents Nos.1 to 5 has accetle<l, 'ronlcver, by relying on the contents of the counter, [earned Assistant Goverrment pleader subrnitted that there is need to keep surveillance over all the rowrly sheeters including the Petitioner, else lawlessness would prevail in the sor:ie ty. Learned Assistant Government Pleacler further submits that if the rovrdy she et is closed against the petitioner, he rnight again indulge in similar offences anrJ jn 1|,s public interest, it is necessary to keep close watch against the petitioner,s ;ictrvities, 6' Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner strbrnits that there are no cases pending against the petitioner anel do not have crirninar antecedents and I I 1 3 not a habitual offender and pray this Court to direct the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's case and close the rowdy sheet pending against him'

7. Having considered the abovc submissions and in view of the fact that the petitioner has already paid the fine amount and since there are no cases pending against the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondent authorities to close the pcnding rowdy sheet against the petitioner' However, it is made clear that once the petitioner is relieved from the proceedings of rowdy sheet, he shatl be kept under surveillance for a period of ( 03 ) months 8 with the above directions, this writ pqtition is disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closqd. No order as to costs' //TRUE COPY// SD/-T.TIRUMALA DEVI EPUTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER 1 The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secreta , gt Hyderabad, TS, State of Telangana. The Commissioner of Police Hyderabap, Commissio The Deputy Commissioner of Police N0rth Zone, Secunderabad, TS. The Station House Officer, Manedpally PoliCe Station, Secunderabad, TS The Station House Officer, Taskforce Police Station, North Zone, Secunderabad, TS. One CC to SRI C.H.JAYAKRISHNA, Afivocate TOPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High CoUrt for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUTI Two CD Copies nerate: TS. To 2 3 4 5 7

8. PSK. o HIGH COURT DATED:0310912025 CC TODAY ORDER WP.No.20222 ot 2025 -'.'ji:' :1:t:... -: .;"__:f ir,,. l;i; ll ,il;11..i\. - - ,-/.+ t_. - . .i.. t [ { 'irl ?$ff j:,:! ,:- ll (. ,t.,' t 5 a_) DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,{ o