Om Prakash Soni v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndla praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleasedtoissueaWritorderordirection,moreparticularlyoneinthenatureofa writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in opening of a Rowdy Sheet against the petitioner and summoning him to the police station nearby becauseofthefourpettycasespendingagainsthiminPoliceStation,Charminar andPoliceStation,Mirchowkwhichisinviolationofhisfundamentalright guaranteedunderArticle2lofConstitutionoflndiaanddeclaretheSameaS arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice' lA NO: 2 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court nray be pleased to permit the petitioner to file additional material papers annexed hereto in the above WP No.40343 of 2022. lA NO: 1 OF 22 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 not to summon the petitioner to the Police Station, Mir Chowk because of the opening of rowdy sheet by Police Station Mir Chowk, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VEROSE SANJANA.. TMP Counsel forthe Respondents No 1 To 6: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI PETITION .40 OF 22 ORDE This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief: "/ssue a writ or an order or a direction, more pafticularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in opening of a Rowdy sheet against the petitioner and summoning him to the police station nearby because of the four petty cases pending against him in police station, Charminar and police station' Mirchowk which is in violation of his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of lndia and declare lhe same as arbitrary, ittegat, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice . ..." 2 Learned Counsel the petitioner submits that the respondent police authorities opening a rowdy sheet against the petitioner and summoning him to the police station basing on four petty offences' this petition has been filed seeking appropriate directions'

3.1. The Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home' on the basisofwritteninstructions,submitsthatthepetitionerhasbeen involved in eight criminal cases since 2008 However' it is fairly admittedthatthreeofthesecasesresultedinacquittal,twowere 2 amicably settled before the Lok Adalat, one was of a civil nature, one crime under Section 324 of the lndian Penal Code (lpC) resulted in admission of guilt, and one case under Sections 385 and 506 lpc remains pending for trial. Thus, as on date, only one crirninal case is pending against the petitioner.

3.2. He further submits that although the petitioner has not been involved in any criminal case since 2023. he is allegedly indulging in nuisance and disturbing public peace and tranquility. Nonetheless, as no formal complaints have been lodged by members of the public, no new criminal cases have been registered. Given these circumstances, it is contended that the petitioner's activities warrant continuous surveillance, and therefore, the continuance of the Rowdy Sheet is justified. Accordingly, it is prayed that the writ petition be clismissed.

4. Having carefully examined the record and submissions, this Court observes that the respondent police authorities justify their action on the ground that the petitioner is a habitual offender and his conduct allegedly disturbs public peace and order.

5. However, upon close scrutiny of the stance of the Respondent Police, it becomes apparent that a bald and unsubstantiated assertion that the petitioner rs inOulglng in acts prejudicial to public peace, without disclosing any specific instances, dates. or materials substantiating such allegations. Additionally as on the date, the only \ \ 3 admitted pending case pertains to Sections 385 and 506 IPC' while the earlier offence under Section 324 IPC has already concluded'

6. Under Standing Order No' 601 of the A P' Police Manual' a Rowdy Sheet may be opened and maintained only when the person concerned satisfies certain statutory and factual criteria such as being a habitual offender, having a proclivity for violence, or being reasonably public order suspected of engaging in activities likely to disturb l\Iaintenance of such surveillance must therefore be objective and cogent material, rather than on mere apprehensions or founded on unverified police oPinion. ln the instant case, the alleged disturbance to public peace and 7. tranquility is not supported by any credible material The authorities appear to have relied solely upon the numerical count of earlier cases' most of which have either resulted in acquittal, settlement' or closure' Moreover, since no criminal activity has been attributed to the petitioner since 2023, having regard to the principles laid down in precedents in Puttagunta Pasi v. Commtssioner of Potice, 1998 (1) ALD 137' Ch' Ramulu v. Supeintendent of Potice,2OOg (2) ALD 746' and K Suresh Babu v. State of A.P-,2016 (1) ALT 251, wherein it was held that the opening or continuation of a Rowdy Sheet must be based on concrete' recent, and relevant evidence. The maintenance of a Rowdy Sheet in theabsenceofsuchmaterialconstitutesaninfringementofthe I t I \ { 4 \i: \,\ individual's right to rife and personar riberty guaranteed urrder Articre 21 of the Constitution of lndia. B In light of the foregoing discussion, this court finds that the continuation of the Rowdy Sheet against the petitioner does not satisfy the statutory and procedural conditions envisaged under Standing Order 601 of the A.p. police Manual. Accordingly, the Rowdy Sheet maintained against the petitioner is hereby quashed, and the respondent police authorities are directed to take all consequential steps forthwith.

9. However, it is clarified that, in future, if the petitioner is found to be involved in cognizable offences or activities threatening public order, the porice sha, be at riberty to reconsider the matter and take action in accordance with law and Standing Orders, based on fresh, tenable, and verifiable material 10 With this direction, the Writ petition is allowed. No costs Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the petition. shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. C. DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR6 SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Princioal Secretary to Govt. Home Department, State of Telangana, Seiretariai, BRKR Bhivan, Hyderabad 500 029

2. The Director General of Police, Telangana, Saifabad, Hyderabad - 500 004 3. The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad 4. The Deputv Commissioner of Police, South Zone, Chatta Bazaar, Pathar Gatti, Hyd6rabad - 500002

5. The Station House Officer, Police Station, Charminar Hyderabad' l .//I

6. The Station House Officer, Police Station, Mir Chowk, Hyderabad. 7. One CC to SRl. VEROSE SANJANA, Advocate [OPUC] B. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME ,High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] \

9. Two CD Copies DAN GJP HIGH COURT DATED:2411112025 I I ORDER WP.No.40343 of 2022 ,c S I ^ .t. 03 t:Cffi t L) .,,<.,/ '' . ' :.., ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \ /* I I