Abdul Hameed v. The State of Telangana

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 a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the very opening of rowdy sheet against the petitioner as grossly illegal and contrary to Standing Order No. 601 of A.P. Police Manual and declare the Rowdy Sheet opened against this petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of lndia and Consequently direct the fifth respondent to close Rowdy Sheet opened against the petitioner henceforth. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 drrect the sth respondent to desist from visiting the petitioners property during late hours and nol to call the petitioner to police station at odd hours lA NO: 2 OF 2025 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 stay the rowdy sheet againsU the petitioner by the fifth respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAVI KUMAR B Counsel forthe Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR ORDER: W.P. No.33992 of 2025 Questioning the action of the respondents in opening of rowdy-sheet against the petitioner, as being grossly illegal and contrary to Standing Order No.601 of A.P. Police Manual, petitioner hled the present writ petition with a consequential prayer to direct the respondents to close the rowdy-sheet against the petitioner.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that based on a false complaint lodged against the petitioner, FIR No.631 of 2017 on the f-rle of Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad, was registered and after completion of investigation charge-sheet is filed vide S.C.No.437 of 2O2l and the same is pending before the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. Except the aforesaid case, no other case is pending against the petitioner as on today. Since the respondents Police are regularly calling the petitioner to the Police Station and harassing on the alleged ground of rowdy-sheet, petitioner filed the present writ petition.

3. On the other hand, the respondent No.4, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Banjara Hills Division, Hyderabad, filed counter affidavit, inter alia, stating that the petitioner is arrayed as an accused in Crime No.631 of 2Ol7 and after completion of investigation charge sheet has been filed before the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, at Hyderabad vide S.C.No.437 of 2021 and the same is 2 pending. Since there is every possibility of petitioner's involvement in other cognizable offences and in order to keep surveillance over his activities rowdy-sheet has been opened against the petitioner vide proceedings No.624 /OW IACP-BH/2023 dated 14. 11.2O23 and as per the A.P. Police Manual Order No.601 as well as Circular No.21721 C13lSCRB/CID/TSl22, dated 22.O7.2022 issued by the Director General of Police, the respondent authorities are following due procedure in opening and continuing/renewing the rowdy/ suspe ct/ history shect. It is further submitted that the Police are not visiting the petitioner's house and not intruding with his privacy.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the material on record and with their consent, this writ petition is disposed of.

5. [t is categorical submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that except the aforementioned single case no other case is pending against the pctitioner, which has not been disputed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader Home. At this juncture, it is not out of place to refer the order rendered by this Court in the case of Mansoor Shah Khan and others Vs. State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Hyderabad and othersr wherein it is held that rowdy-sheet could not be opened against al individual in a casual and mechanical manner and due care and caution should be taken by the Police before '2021 (4i_ALT 36 (TS) 3 characterizing a person as a rowdy and figuring as an accused in two cases would not be sufficient to charac terizr a person as a habitual offender. For better appreciation, the relevant paras No.23, 24 and 26 are extracted hereunder. "23. As stated aboue, a.s per Standing Order 601 of the A.P. Police Manua| fo, opening and maintenance of rouLdg sheet, o person against uhom the same u)as issued should lnbituallg commit, attempt to commit or abet the commbsion of offences inuoluing a breach of peace, di,sturbance to public order and secuity. Further, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Narain Singh's case (2 supra| the expression 'habituallg' wouLd mean 'repeatedlg' or 'persbtentlg' implging a thread of continuitg, stinging together similar repetitiue acts, and a single act or omission tuould not characterize an act as 'habitual'. TLe Hon'ble Apex Court was of the opinion that to qualifu as a 'hobtt', a person must houe grown accustomed to leading a ltfe of crime, u.therebg it Luould be a force of habtt, inherent or latent, in an indiuidual uith a ciminal instinct, with a ciminal disposition of mind, that makes htm dangerous to societA in general. In Majid Babu's case (6 supra| bA referrtng to Standing Order No.742, it u-tas held that tuo instances of inuoluement in ciminal cases utould not make a person a 'habitual offender' and that atleast more tlTan tLUo instances should be present before a person can be described as a habitual offender. Rou-tdg sheet could not be opened against an indiuidual in a casual and mechanical manner and due care and caution should be taken by the police before characterizing a person as a roudg. 4 Figuing as an acatsed- in tuto co.ses uould not be sufficient to chnracterize a person as a hnbitual offender. -

24. In uieu of the aboue said law laid doun and in uieu.t of the aboue said disczssio& the petitioners herein were inuolued in the oboue said tuo crimes. One crime has ended in acquittal. As on todag, onlg one case i.e PRC.No.307 of 2O2O is pending against the petitioners herein. Thtts, the requirement of inuoluement of in at Leo-st more than tuo cases for infering that the letitioners uere habitual olfenders uas not established. Thus opening of rou-rdg sheets in tle name of the petitioners is therefore controry to tLrc procedure Iaid dotun under A.P. Police Manual and procedure laid dou.tn in the Judgments supra.

26. Therefore, the u.tit petition is qllou.ted and the responderts are directed to close the rowdg slrcets being maintained in the names of the petitioners on the file of Banjara Hills Police Station, Hgderabad. There shall be no order as to costs. "

6. From the above, it could be culled out that for inferring a person as a habitual offender, his involvement in at least more thar two cases is required. Further, as per Standing Order 6O I of the A.P. Police Manual, for opening and maintenance of rowdy sheet, a person against whom the same was issued should habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences involving a breach of peace, disturbance to public order and security. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner is involved in F.l.R.No.631 of 2Ol7 on the file of Banjara Hills police Station, Hyderabad and the 5 same is pending. Except aforementioned single case registered against the petitioner, no other case is pending against the petitioner. Thus, opening of rowdy-sheet and continuing the same against the petitioner is contrary to the procedure laid down under A.P. Police Manual and against the law laid down by this Court in the case of Mansoor Shah Khan (cited supra) therefore, the rowdy-sheet opened against the petitioner is liable to be closed. 7 . Accordingly, . this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondi:nts to close the rowdy-sheet opened against the petitioner. However, it is made clear that this order does not preclude the respondent Police authority to initiate appropriate action on the petitioner, if he indulges in any activity which is against the public tranquility. Thcre shall be no order as to costs. As a scquel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. SDI M. JAWAHAR SISTANT REG REDDY ISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, Hyderabad. Secretariat B uilding, Secretari it, Hyderabad

1. The Principa I SecretarY, The State of Telangana' Home Department' 2. The Commissioner of Police' Hyderabad Commissionerate' At Basheerbagh' The Deputy Commissioner of Police' West Zone' Baniara Hills' Hyderabad The Assistant Commissioner of Police' Banjara Hills' Hyderabad' The Station House Officer' Ban'iara Hills Potice Station' Hyderabad' One CC to Sri Ravi Kumar B' Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Home' High Court for the State of Telangana' at

4. 5 r) 7 Hyderabad [OUTI 8 Two CD CoPies Ur TJ BM HIGH COURT DATED:2511112025 ORDER WP.No.33992 of 2025 1 \{E STATT U () 13 ttB 202[ ()i k t DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS *d& ft-"