The High Court · 2025

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of lMandamus to declare the action of the respondents in opening the Rowdy Sheet against the petitioner in the '1st respondent police station even though the petitioner is not the habitual offender involving in breach of public peace and tranquility as prescribed under Police Standing Order No.601 as arbitrary, illegal, violation of Article 22 of the Constitution of lndia and consequenly direct the respondents to close the Rowdy Sheet pending against the petitioner in the 1st respondent police station forthwith. .\ lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petit;on 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 r()spondents not to compel the petitioner to bind over himself on the ground of oendency of the Rowdy Sheet against the petitioner in the 1st respondent colice station pending disposal of the writ petition . Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI p.NAGENDRA REDDY counsel for the Respondents: sRl D.PRADEEP, AGp FoR HoME The Court m,ade the following: ORDER . ':r IN TIIE IIIGII COURT FOR THr, STA;E OF TEI,ellGer{A SRI JUSTICE N'TUIGRAMJI TIIT IIONOURABLE AT EYDERABAD B-eggEi VijaY Kumar Yadav AND The State of Telangana & Others ...Petitioner ResPondents ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief: '...to issue a writ, order o: d.1:::tiot more Parti;u'*#l"ii Hi ad:l"'Fii"ur#rir$i[rrut3;"n"*x TJ["'"""t";Irffi:i#iiir{:lnr"'i#Hl'#i,:1i;G nHlH:qiff Hi*?I''$J"#1ff ;"'",::t*1fl 1;.'iii"t"'i; the interest or :""*:1.:*"1"fi:3ottr*""3i"'i:*;;'-; juslice"""""'"

2. Heard Mr'P'Nagendra Reddy' learned counsel for the petitioner,Mr.D.Pradeep,learnedAssistantGovernmentPleader for Home appearing for respond'ent Nos' 1 to 5'

3.Learned.counselforthepetitionersubmitsthatthepresent writ petition has been frled. assailing the action of the respondent policeauthoritiesinopeningandcontinuingarowdysheet against the petitioner, branding him as a habitual offender' , t I I = 2 without there being any substantive or cogent material to justify such surveillance. It is contended that the act, - --'qL urrc ?'ctlofl of the police is arbitranr, viorative nf +L^ rtive of the petitioner,s fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 2l of the Constitution of India, and contrary to the provjsions of the A.p. police standing orders (..A.p.p.s.o.,), particura{y Standing order 601-4. Accordingly, the petitioner seeks apprropriate directions to the respo.ro.rrr" for quashing the rowdy sht:et and deleting his name from the < _--_ .rvrrr Lrre concerned police recOrdS. 4' Lear,ed Assistant Government preader for Home submits that the pr:titioner was involved in two criminar cases, namely, crime No. 5 1 0f 2076 and crime No. 506 0f 207g, and that the rowdy sheer- was opened to monitor the petitioner,s movements in order to prevent him from indulging in further unlawful activities. He fairly submits that crime No. 51 of 2016 curminated in c.c. No' 22 of 2oLg before the court of the xvII Additional MetropolitarL Magistrate, Kushaiguda, which was compounded before the Lok Adalat on 22.o3.2o1g following an amicable settlement between the parties. Further, crirne No. 506 of 2018 was taken cn file as c.c. No. 357 0f 2019 before ttre sarne court and, after full trial' ended in acquittal bY jud'gment dated contends that' considering -ttfd 27 .06.2022' He nevertheless and to Prevent Potential breach of need for continued surveillance I -$ 3 peace, the rowdy sheet has been maintained against the petitioner, and therefore prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. I have perused the material placed on record.

6. The admitted position is that the rowdy sheet was opened against the petitioner branding him as a habitual offend.er, purportedly under Standing order 601-A of the A.p. police Manuar. The said standing order provides that a rowdy sheet may be opened against persons who habitualry commit, abet, or attempt to commit offences involving breach of public peace and tranquility, or who are reasonabry suspected of engaging in activities prejudiciar to the maintenance of pubric order. 7 ' However, the Standing Orders also mandate that there must be substantive and credibre material to justify such surveillance. They further stipulate that: (a) a minimum number of offences exist for consideration; involving the individual should (b) there rnust be a continuing pattern of conduct posing a threat to public peace; and (c) the rowdy sheet must undergo a mandatory review every six months, during which the competent authorit5r must record specific reasons in writing for its continuation. I t .-'"%.. ( 4 g. It is also a settled principle of law, consistently recognized by the Hon'ble High Courts, that if a person has not been involvec in any criminal activity or offence affecting public peace for a (lontinuous period of three years' the rowdy sheet must ord'inarilybeclosed.Thisprincipleflowsfromthejudgmentsof thisCou.:tinPuttaEmtaLakshmanaU.StateofA.P.[2008(2)ALD (CrI.) 355 (AP)l and Kamma Bapuji u' Station House Officer' Brohmas,zmudramPoliceStation|lgg7(2)ALD(Crl.)508(AP)], whereinitwasheldthatsurveillancewithouta.presentor continuing threat to public peace amounts to infringement of personal liberty and cannot be sustained in law' g. In the present case' it is undisputed that the last case in which the petitioner was involvecl was Crime No' 506 of 2O18' which encled in acquittal by judgment dated 27 '06'2022' Ttre other case (Crime No' 51 of 2()16l was compounded long ago before the L'ok Adalat in 2019' Thus' for more than three years' thereisnomaterialtoshowthatthepetitionerhasbeeninvolved inarrYunlawfuloranti-socialactivitieswarrantingcontinued surveillance 10- In the absence suggesdng that the of any fresh or petitioner Poses a threat to Public Peace of the l6wdY arrd corrtrary rnaioteoarrce material 6rd to ttre arupqurlitY' $e contrrrued ,g"bs Yrirrt is arbitrarY' I I \ t\ 5 spirit of Articles 14 and 21 of th of such surveillance' e Constitution' after the closure or acqul The continuance .$a1 in all cases' cannotbejustifredund.erStandingorder60l-Aandviolatesthe principlesoffairnessandreasonablenessthatmustguidepolice action'

11. Accordingly' this Court is of the considered view that the unsustainable rowdysheetmaintainedagainstthepetitionerislegallY and liable to be quashed' The respondent police authorities are' therefore' d'irected' to forthwith delete the no adverse surveillance is maintained against him' unless petitioner,Snarnefromtherowdy-sheetrecordsandensurethat warrantedbyanyfutureconductsupportedbycogentmaterial and in strict accord'ance with law' t2.Intheresult,thewritpetitionisallowed.Therowdysheet maintainedagainstthepetitionerisquashed,andthe respondentsared.irectedtotakenecessarystepstodeletehis namefromtherelevantpolicerecordsforthwith.Thereshallbe no order as to costs' M is cellane ou s Pe titiong-, -P-" ttdit' g t t ! ASSISTANT /,TRUE COPY/' SECTION OFFICER To

1. 2

4. District

5. The PrirciD2l Son.^+^^. , r i ffiff fff**H- PSK. r GrP \4/ ,/ . \ trtfr erdffi-,r ;,i",,,;, " "' "-,, ::' HIGH COURT DATED:1211212025 t ORDER WP.No.38824 of 2018 I / II 'F,.,r I o ( * THE S z). -.i - c 6 i':trn 7t17fr * ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUTCOSTS (,