The Hon'ble High Court, rna catena of judgments including Puttagunta Lakshmana v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Petition under Article 226 of the 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 rn nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 3 and 4 in opening and continuing suspect sheet against the petttioner on the file of the cherial Police Station, Cherial, Siddhipet District as illegal, arbitrary and consequently quash the same. l.A. NO: 1OF 2017 (WPM P. NO: 41765 OF 20171 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 2 to 4 not to call the petitioner to the Police Station under the guise of pendency of Suspect sheet on the file of the cherial Police station, Cherial, Shiddhipet District pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N. ASWARTHA NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents: SRt M. sRlNlvAS, ASST. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITIO N No.33 566 0F 2017 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Anicle 226 of Constrtutron of lndia seeking the following reltef ' .to lsst/e an order clrection or a wnt pafticularly one in the iature Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respol)dent's 3 artd 4 in cpentng and conttnuing suspecl sheel against the petlrcner on the ftte ot the Chertal Police Statton, Cherial, Siddhipet District as llegal arbitrary and cotlsequetltly quash the same.

2. None for the pettttoner. 3 Heard h/r.[\LSrinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for resPondents. :r Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that as per the

4. written instructions received, a suspecf/rowdy sheet was opened against the petitioner on 31.12.2009 at Cherial Police Station At that time. three criminal cases were pending against the petitioner, two of which were bind-over cases that were subsequently closed on

09.05 2009 and 02 08 2018 respectively, while the remaining case ended in acquittal. lt is further submitted that thereafter, Crime No. 15 of 2014 and Crime No. 58 of 2017 were registered against the petitioner' Crime No 15 of 2014 is still pending for trial, while in Crime No 58 of 2017 , the final report was filed classifying the matter as "civil in nature. ' Thus, as of now, only one criminal case, Crime No 15 of 2014 remains pending against the petitioner. However, it is contended that as the petitioner is a habitual offender, the continuation of the suspecUrowdy - sheet is justified. Accordingly, learned Assistant Government Pleader prays for dismissal of the writ petition

5. I have carefully perused the material avarlable on record

6. As per the record and the submissions made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, lhe rowdy sheet was opened on 31 .12.2009. Even by that time, the bind-over cases against the petitioner had already been closed, and one case had resulted in acquittal. Subsequently, two more cases were registered in 2014 and 2017, of which only one (Crime No. 15 of 2014) remains pending, while the other (Crime No. 58 of 20171 has been closed as civil in nature.

7. The present factual position indicates that only one criminal case is. pending against the petitioner. This scenario does not satisfy the requirements for continuation of a rowdy sheet under Standing Order 601-4 ol the A.P. Police Manual The said Standing Order stipulates lhal a rowdy sheel may be opened and maintained only against individuals who habitually engage in criminal or disorderly conduct, or in cases where there are at least two or more criminal cases of such nature registered against them, reflecting a pattern of behavior .! prejudicial to public peace and order.

8. The Hon'ble High Court, rna catena of judgments including Puttagunta Lakshmana v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2009 (4) ALT 450) . and Shaik Mahaboob v. Stafe of Andhra Pradesh (2016 (1) ALD (Crl ) l I 901 (AP)), has consistently held that mere registration of one or two isolated cases particularly when they have ended in acquittal or closure. does not justrfy the opening or continuance of a rowdy sheet' lvlaintenance of such a record, in the absence of compelling material indrcating habitual criminal conduct. would amount to arbitrary exercise ofpolicepowerandaninfrtngementoftheindividuat'srighttolifeand personal liberty guaranteed under Article 2'1 of the constitution of lndia. ln the present case, except for the registration of a few cases in L the past and a bare assertion that the petitioner is a "habitual offender," no tangible material or substantiated pleading has been produced by the respondents to lustrfy the openrng or continuation of the suspect/rowdy sheet. Furthermore, the record reveals that by the date of opening the sheet, there was only one bind-over case against the petitroner. which itself does not constitute a valid ground for such preventive action.

10. In view of the above factual and legal position' and considering that there rs no material to satisfy the criteria prescribed under Standmg Orcler 601-A of the A.P Potice Manualfor either opening or continuing a rowdy sheet, thrs Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of the rowdy sheet against the petitioner is arbitrary and unsustainable in law. 4

11. Accordingly, the suspect/rowdy sheet maintained against the petitioner is hereby quashed. The respondents/police authoritres are directed to take all consequential steps forthwith to close the said sheet. 12 ln the result, this Writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petifions, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/.K.BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR C SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The Principal Secretary, Home Department, The State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad. The Suoerintendent of Police, Siddhipet-, The Sub-divisional Police Officer, Gajwel, Siddhipet. District. The Station House Officer, Cherial P6lice Station, Cherral, Siddhipet Dislnct One CC to SRI N. ASWARTHA NARAYANA, Advocate IqPUCI Two CCs to GP FOR HOIVE, High Court for the State ot Telangana luu ll Two CD Copies OBN BS HIGH COURT DATED:1 011012025 toR THE S lA o 1 I r4AR 2tl26 * * pnrcrrit? ( 1- (.) ORDER WP.No.33566 of 2017 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS