Telangana High Court
Palakura Durga Prasad vs The State Of Telangana on 21 June, 2021
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No.6156 OF 2021
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner under Article - 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents in maintaining rowdy sheet against him as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles - 14, 19 (1) (e) and 21 of the Constitution of India and for a consequential direction to the respondents to close the rowdy sheet maintained against the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Mohd. Muzafferullah Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Rama Mohan Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home & Law appearing on behalf of the respondents.
3. The contentions of the petitioner are as under:
(i) the police had registered the following cases against the petitioner falsely Stage/ S.No Crime No. C.C./S.C. No. Offences Result SC 28/14 on the file of 47/2013 of Addl. Metropolitan Section - 302, S.R. Nagar Sessions Judge for trial 120B and 201 Acquitted
01. Police of Communal Offence - r/w 34 of IPC Station, cum - VII Addl.
Hyd. (A-1) Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyd.
Section - 370
82/2015 of of IPC and
Banjara SC 134/17 on the file Secs.3, 4 & 5 Acquitted
02.
Hills P.S., of IV of the
Hyderabad Addl.Metropolitan Immoral
(A-3) Sessions Judge, Hyd. Traffic
(Prevention)
Act
2
KL,J
W.P.No.6156 of 2021
(ii) the Police of S.R. Nagar Police Station has opened a
rowdy sheet against him on 16.12.2013 basing on a single crime viz., Cr.No.47 of 2013 and later on the point of jurisdiction, it was transferred to the Station House Officer, Uppal Police Station, Hyderabad, on 01.01.2020 as he is staying within its limits;
(iii) under the guise of opening and maintaining the said rowdy sheet, the police have been harassing the petitioner by calling him to the police station which is causing serious hardship to his livelihood as he is doing a petty business and he is the only bread earner in his family;
(iv) basing on pendnecy of single crime, police officials cannot open and maintain rowdy sheet against the petitioner;
(v) a person should be a habitual offender for the purpose of opening and maintaining of rowdy sheet; and
(vi) placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in Dhanji Ram Sharma v. Superintendent of Police, North District, Delhi Police1 and reiterated in Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar2 and the judgment of High Court of Andhra 1 . AIR 1966 SC 1766 2 . AIR 1984 SC 1334 3 KL,J W.P.No.6156 of 2021 Pradesh in Umesh Singhaniya v. The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad3.
With the said submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner sought to declare the action of the respondents in not closing the rowdy sheet as illegal and for a consequential direction to close the above said rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner.
4. The contentions of the respondents are as under:
(i) the petitioner is having unlawful character locally, indulging continuously in the commission of lawless acts involving breach of public peace and tranquility;
(ii) the petitioner was involved in the following cases:
Stage/ S.No Crime No. C.C./S.C. No. Offences Result SC 28/14 on the file of 47/2013 of Addl. Metropolitan Section - S.R. Nagar Sessions Judge for trial of 302, 120B Ended in
01. Police Communal Offence - cum and 201 r/w acquittal on Station, - VII Addl. Metropolitan 34 of IPC 22.10.19 Hyd. (A-1) Sessions Judge, Hyd.
Section -
82/2015 of 370 of IPC Ended in
Banjara SC 134/17 on the file of IV and Secs.3, Acquittal on
02. Hills P.S., Addl.Metropolitan 4 & 5 of the 19.12.2019
Hyderabad Sessions Judge, Hyd. Immoral
(Accused Traffic
No.3 (Prevention)
Act
Bound over
03. 163/2021 of -- Section 107 in view of
Uppal P.S. of Cr.P.C. MLC
Elections.
3
. 2013 (3) ALT 146
4
KL,J
W.P.No.6156 of 2021
(iii) as per the A.P. Police Manual, Order No.601, certain persons may be classified as rowdies and rowdy sheets may be opened against them, and the case of petitioner would squarely fit for opening the rowdy sheet; and
(iv) in view of involvement of the petitioner in the aforesaid criminal cases, to curb and curtail is unlawful activities, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Punjagutta Division, have opened rowdy sheet on 16.12.2013 as per the Police Standing Orders and the same was being continued and renewed from time to time till March, 2019 and later on the point of jurisdiction it was transferred to Uppal Police Station vide Memo No.349/CCRB/Rachakonda/2019, dated 23.03.2019 as the petitioner is staying within its limits;
With the said submissions, the learned Assistant Government Pleader sought to dismiss the writ petition.
5. In view of the said rival submissions, it is opt to refer to the relevant clauses of the A.P. Police Manual. Maintenance of rowdy sheets is governed by Standing Order 601 of the A.P. Police Manual, Part-I, Volume II, which reads as under:-
5
KL,J W.P.No.6156 of 2021 "601. The following persons may be classified as rowdies and Rowdy Sheets (Form 80) may be opened for them under the orders of the SP/DCP and ACP/SDPO.
A. Persons who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences involving a breach of the peace, disturbance to public order and security.
B. Persons bound over under Sections 106, 107, 108(1) (i) and 110(e) and (g) of Cr.P.C.
C. Persons who have been convicted more than once in two consecutive years under sections 59 and 70 of the Hyderabad City Police Act or under section 3, clause 12, of the AP Towns Nuisances Act.
D. Persons who habitually tease women and girls and pass indecent remarks.
E. Persons who intimidate by threats or use of physical violence or other unlawful means to part with movable or immovable properties or in the habit of collecting money by extortion from shopkeepers, traders and other residents.
F. Persons who incite and instigate communal/caste or political riots.
G. Persons detained under the "AP Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land-Grabbers Act, 1986" for a period of 6 months or more.
H. Persons who are convicted for offences under the Representatives of the Peoples' Act for rigging and carrying away ballot paper, Boxes and other polling material."
6. Likewise, the period of retention of history sheets of suspects / rowdies is governed by Standing Order 602, which reads as follows:- 6
KL,J W.P.No.6156 of 2021 "602-1. History Sheets of suspects shall be maintained from the date of registration up to the end of December, after which the orders of a gazetted officer as to their discontinuance or retention for a further period shall be obtained.
2. Merely because a suspect/rowdy, having a history sheet, is not figuring as accused in the previous 5 years after the last case in which he was involved, it should not preclude the SP/DCP/CP to continue his history sheet if SP/DCP/CP is of the considered view that his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or one affecting peace and tranquillity in the area or the victims are not coming forward to give complaint against him on account of threat from him."
7. Standing Order 742 of A.P. Police Standing Orders deals with the situation as to classification of rowdies and opening of rowdy sheets, which is extracted below:-
"742. Rowdies:- (1) The following persons may be classified as rowdies and Rowdy Sheets (Form 88) may be opened for them under the order of the Superintendent of Police or Sub-divisional Officer:
a) persons who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of, offences involving a breach of the peace;
b) persons bound over under Sections 106, 107, 108(c) and 110(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No.2 of 1974);
c) persons who have been convicted more than once in two consecutive years under Section 75 of the Madras City Police Act or under Section 3, clause 12, of the Towns Nuisances Act; 7
KL,J W.P.No.6156 of 2021
d) persons who habitually tease women and girls by passing indecent remarks or otherwise; and
e) in the case of rowdies residing in an area under one Police Station but are found to be frequently visiting the area under one or more other Police Stations their rowdy sheets can be maintained at all such Police Stations;
(G.O. Ms. No. 656, Home (Police-D) Dept. Dt. 8-4-1971) (2) Instructions in Order 735 regarding discontinuance of History Sheets shall also apply to Rowdy Sheets."
8. According to the respondents, the petitioner was involved in the above said three cases viz., S.C. No.28 of 2014 for the offence under Sections 302, 120B and 201 read with 34 of IPC; S.C. No.134 of 2017 for the offence under Section 370 of IPC and Sections - 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and Crime No.163 of 2021 for the offence under Section - 107 of Cr.P.C.
9. As per Standing Order 601 of the A.P. Police Manual, rowdy sheet can be maintained against persons who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences involving a breach of peace, disturbance to public order and security.
10. Refuting the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that out of the said three cases, S.C. Nos.28 of 2014 134 of 2017 were ended in acquittal, while Crime No.163 of 2021 was registered under the provisions of Cr.P.C. which cannot be equated with the offences under the provisions of IPC. Thus, there are no crimes pending 8 KL,J W.P.No.6156 of 2021 against the petitioner. Even then, as per the Police Manual, if a single crime is pending, opening of a rowdy sheet against any person is illegal.
11. The Apex Court had an occasion to deal with the opening of history sheets, continuation of the same and also right to privacy in Kharak Singh v. The State of U. P.4. In the said case, rowdy sheet was opened against the petitioner therein and the same was continued. Under the guise of surveillance, the police started visiting the house of the petitioner therein against whom rowdy sheet was opened and pending during night hours and they used to torture him. The Apex Court declared the domiciliary visits at night hours as unconstitutional.
12. In Vijay Narain Singh2, a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court had an occasion to deal with the expression 'habitually' and held that the expression 'habitually' would mean 'repeatedly' or 'persistently' implying a thread of continuity, stringing together similar repetitive acts, and a single act or omission would not characterize an act as 'habitual'. The Apex Court was of the opinion that to qualify as a 'habit', a person must have grown accustomed to leading a life of crime, whereby it would be a force of habit, inherent or latent, in an individual with a criminal instinct, with a criminal disposition of mind, that makes him dangerous to society in general.
13. In Dhanji Ram Sharma1, a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that the condition precedent for opening of a history sheet is 4 . AIR 1963 SC 1295 9 KL,J W.P.No.6156 of 2021 that such person should be reasonably believed to be habitually addicted to crime or to be an aider or abettor of crime. In order to justify the opening of a history sheet, the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined that the police officer must have a reasonable belief based on reasonable grounds.
14. In Sunkara Satyanarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh5 a learned Single Judge was concerned with the maintenance of history sheets/rowdy sheets for considerably long periods of time and held that the same would not only violate the right of privacy but also other fundamental rights of such persons under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. Orders for opening or retention of history sheets/rowdy sheets should be passed under administrative instructions and guidelines and if such orders are challenged, the competent authority has to place the reasons before the Court justifying the opening/retention of such history sheets/rowdy sheets. It would be better for the police officer concerned to record his own reasons for opening/retention of history sheets/rowdy sheets.
15. In B. Satyanarayana Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh6, a Division Bench held that the expressions 'habitually commit', 'attempt to commit' and 'abet the commission' of offences indicate the requirement that at least 'two or more cases' have bee been registered against the person concerned to characterize him as a person who habitually commits, attempts to or abets the commission of offences. It 5 . 2000(1) ALD (Crl.) 117 (AP) 6 . 2004(1) ALD (Crl.) 387 (AP) 10 KL,J W.P.No.6156 of 2021 was further held that involvement of a person in a solitary case would not be enough to classify such person as 'habitually' committing offences. With the said finding, the Division Bench held that solitary instance in which the appellant therein was alleged to be involved in could not constitute the basis to classify him as a 'rowdy.'
16. In Majid Babu v. Government of A.P.7, it was held that two instances of involvement in criminal cases would not make a person a 'habitual offender' and that at least more than two instances should be present before a person can be described as a habitual offender.
17. In Kamma Bapuji v. Station House Officer, Brahmasamudram8, wherein the persons in whose names rowdy sheets were opened were involved in two cases but they were acquitted in both, it was sought to be contended on behalf of the police authorities that the rowdy sheets were opened during the pendency of the cases and that acquittal therein would be of no consequence thereafter. While dealing with the said facts of the said case, the learned Judge rejected the said contention and held that rowdy sheets could not be opened in a casual and mechanical manner and a person could not be dubbed a 'habitual offender' merely because he was involved in two criminal cases.
18. In Puttagunta Pasi v. Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada9, a Division Bench confirmed the said principle holding that a rowdy sheet could not be opened against an individual in a casual and 7 . 1987(2) ALT 904 8 . 1997 (6) ALD 583 9 . 1998(3) ALT 55 (DB) 11 KL,J W.P.No.6156 of 2021 mechanical manner and due care and caution should be taken by the police before characterizing a person as a rowdy. The Division Bench expressed agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in Kamma Bapuji8 that figuring as an accused in two crimes would not be sufficient to categorize a person as a 'habitual offender'.
19. In Mohammed Quadeer v. Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad10 it was held that A.P. Police Standing Orders were not statutory in nature and were only a compilation of government orders issued from time to time and they therefore did not invest the police officers with any powers of arrest, detention, investigation of crimes etc. not specifically conferred under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or other enactments. As regards retention of a rowdy sheet, it was held that opening of a rowdy sheet against a citizen was undoubtedly fraught with serious consequences and the right to reputation under Article 21 of the Constitution could not be deprived except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The law which authorizes the police to open rowdy sheets and exercise surveillance would have to be very strictly construed.
20. In Yerramsetti Venugopal Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh11, a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi referring to the above said provisions of the A.P. Police Manual and the principles laid down in the above said judgments held 10 . 1999(3) ALD 60 11 . 2020 (2) ALD (Crl.) 1048 (AP) 12 KL,J W.P.No.6156 of 2021 that history sheet of a rowdy can be continued (i) if his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or affecting peace and tranquility in the area; and (ii) the victims are not coming forward to give complaint against him on account of threat from him.
21. In W.P.No.19194 of 2012 dated 24.08.2015, by referring to the above said provisions of the A.P. Police Manual and also the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgments, it was held that the requirement of involvement in at least more than two cases for inferring that he was a habitual offender was not established. The opening of the rowdy sheet in the name of the petitioner therein was therefore tainted in law in its very inception. Therefore, continuation of the said rowdy sheet by the police authorities ignoring the law laid down by this Court as well as the Supreme Court cannot be sustained. Accordingly, with the said finding, the respondents therein were directed to close the rowdy sheet being maintained in the name of the petitioner therein.
22. In another judgment in W.P.No.18364 of 2020 dated 03.12.2020, a learned Judge of this Court, after referring to the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Vijay Narain Singh2 and also referring to the Police Standing Orders supra, it was held that it is impermissible to the police to open a rowdy sheet if police are of the view that the petitioner is habitually committing offences/abetting commission of offence involving breach of peace, disturbance to the public order and security. In the said case, the petitioner was involved in five cases and he 13 KL,J W.P.No.6156 of 2021 has been facing trial in the said cases. Referring to the facts of the said case, it was held that it cannot be said that the action of the police in opening rowdy sheet amounts to abuse or misuse of power and authority, and cannot be said as one made in illegal exercise of power and without application of mind.
23. In W.P.No.12845 of 2014 dated 27.09.2019, wherein the petitioner was involved in only one case for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and by relying on the principles laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in catenae of decisions, it was held that opening of rowdy sheet and continuation of the same thereafter was in violation of the life and liberty as guaranteed to the petitioner therein under the provisions of the Constitution of India as well as contrary to the law laid down by this Court and the Apex Court.
24. Following the above said principle, this Court also ordered for closure of rowdy sheet vide order dated 01.06.2020 in W.P. No.22980 of 2020.
25. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Madras High Court in G. Raman Alias Ramachandran v. The Superintendent of Police, Karur District12. In the said case, it was held that in public interest, the Police have got a right to disseminate information, concerning law and order, and crime. Display or publication of a photograph of a History 12 . 2013 Crl.LJ 2746 14 KL,J W.P.No.6156 of 2021 Sheeted Rowdy may be continued to infringe upon a person's right, in so far as it affects his identity, reputation in the minds of others, but at the same time, public interest would prevail over private interest. Referring to the same, the learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that the respondents have rightly opened the rowdy sheet against the petitioner and is continuing the same in the interest of public. According to him, there is no illegality.
26. In view of the law laid down by this Court and the Apex Court in the above said judgments, coming to the facts on hand, as discussed supra, admittedly, though petitioner was involved in three criminal cases viz., S.C. Nos.28 of 2014 and 134 of 2017 and Crime NO.163 of 2021, S.C. Nos.28 of 2014 and 134 of 2017 were ended in acquittal, while Crime No.163 of 2021 was registered for the offence under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. which cannot be equated with the offences under the provisions of IPC. Thus, as on today, there is no case pending against the petitioner. According to the respondents, to curb and curtail the unlawful activities of the petitioner herein after obtaining permission from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad, the above said rowdy sheet was opened against the petitioner herein and the same is being continued in view of public interest.
27. As stated above, as per Standing Order 601 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, 15 KL,J W.P.No.6156 of 2021 disturbance to public order and security. Further, as held by the Apex Court in Vijay Narain Singh2, the expression 'habitually' would mean 'repeatedly' or 'persistently' implying a thread of continuity, stringing together similar repetitive acts, and a single act or omission would not characterize as a 'habitual'. The Apex Court was of the opinion that to qualify as a 'habit', a person must have grown accustomed to leading a life of crime, whereby it would be a force of habit, inherent or latent, in an individual with a criminal instinct, with a criminal disposition of mind, that makes him dangerous to society in general. In Majid Babu7 by referring to Standing Order No.742, it was held that two instances of involvement in criminal cases would not make a person a 'habitual offender' and that at least more than two instances should be present before a person can be described as a habitual offender. Rowdy sheet could not be opened against an individual in a casual and mechanical manner and due care and caution should be taken by the police before characterizing a person as a rowdy. Figuring as an accused in two cases would not be sufficient to characterize a person as a habitual offender.
28. In view of the above said law laid down and in view of the above said discussion, there is no single crime pending against the petitioner under the provisions of IPC. Thus, the requirement of involvement in at least more than two cases for inferring that the petitioner is habitual offender was not established. Therefore, opening of rowdy sheets in the name of the petitioner is, therefore, contrary to the 16 KL,J W.P.No.6156 of 2021 procedure prescribed under A.P. Police Manual and the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid Judgments.
29. As held in Yerramsetti Venugopal Rao11, rowdy sheet can be continued (i) if his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or affecting peace and tranquility in the area; and (ii) the victims are not coming forward to give complaint against him on account of threat from him. The said grounds are lacking in the present case. Therefore, continuation of the said rowdy sheet by the police authorities ignoring the law laid down by this Court as well as the Apex Court in the judgments cited supra cannot be sustained.
30. For the foregoing discussion, the present Writ Petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to close the rowdy sheet being issued and maintained in the name of the petitioner on the file of Uppal Police Station, Hyderabad. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 21st JUNE, 2021 Mgr