Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Imadabathini Kalyana Chakravarthi, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 6 October, 2020
Author: U.Durga Prasad Rao
Bench: U.Durga Prasad Rao
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
Writ Petition No.2305 of 2020
ORDER:
The petitioner seeks to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of 3rd respondent in opening Rowdy Sheet No.805/2020 on the file of Lalapet Police Station, Lalapet, Guntur and continuing the same even though 3 crimes i.e., Crime No.118/2010 of Arundelpet Police Station, Guntur; Crime No.150/2010 of Peddakakani Police Station, Guntur District; Crime No.85/2018 of Lalapet Police Station, Guntur District are referred as false and Crime No.269/2013 of Lalapet Police Station was ended in acquittal and only the C.C.No.964/2015 (in Crime No.489/2014) and the complaint in Crime No.385/2019 on the file of Lalapet Police Station, Guntur are pending adjudication as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to close the Rowdy Sheet No.805 of 2020 on the file of Lalapet Police Station, Guntur, Guntur District.
2. The petitioner's case succinctly is thus.
(a) The petitioner is doing business and the persons who bore grudge against him has instigated some persons to register complaints against him and some cases are registered against him as stated supra.
The Crime No.118/2010, Crime No.150/2010 and Crime No.85/2018 are referred as false and Crime No.269/2013 of Lalapet Police Station was ended in acquittal and the C.C.No.964/2015 in Crime No.489/2014 and Crime No.385/2019 on the file of Lalapet Police 2 UDPR, J WP.No.2305 of 2020 Station are pending for adjudication. The further case of the petitioner is that the majority of the cases were investigated by the Police and referred as false which indicates that the complaints are motivated. Only two cases are pending and he is not a habitual offender as alleged and there are no valid grounds to open a rowdy sheet as per the A.P. Police Manual. Still the respondent authorities opened rowdy sheet against him without any plausible grounds and compelling him to attend before them very frequently and detaining in the police station from dawn to dusk. Thereby the petitioner suffers a lot and his right to liberty as envisaged in Article 21 of the Constitution is jeopardized and his business is adversely affected.
Hence, the writ petition.
3. The 3rd respondent filed counter denying all the averments in the writ petition and contended thus:
(a) The petitioner has scant respect for law and order and he was involved in the following criminal cases relating to Lalapet police station, Kothapet Police Station, Arundelpet Police Station and Pedakakani Police Station of Guntur District.
1) Cr.No.118/2010 under Sections 324, 354, 509, 447, 506 r/w 34 IPC of Arandalpet Police Station (referred as False)
2) Cr.No.150/2010 under Sections 506, 323 IPC of Pedakakani Police Station (referred as false) 3 UDPR, J WP.No.2305 of 2020
3) Cr.No.265/2013 under Section 420 IPC and Section 4 Rule of Pawn Brokers Act of Lalapet Police Station (ended in acquittal)
4) Cr.No.489/2014 under Sections 384, 323, 509, 420, 506 r/w 34 IPC of Kothapeta Police Station (pending trial vide C.C.No.
5) Cr.No.85/2018 under Sections 324, 354, 384, 506 r/w 34 IPC of Lalapet Police Station (referred as false)
6) Cr.No.385/2019 under Sections 420, 468, 471, 342, 384, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sec. 4 of Pawn Brokers Act of Lalapet Police Station (case is under investigation) Since the petitioner has been habitually committing the offences, a rowdy sheet had to be opened in terms of the A.P. Police Manual Standing Order No.601. Therefore, to curtail his unlawful activities, rowdy sheet No.805/2020 was opened after obtaining permission from 3rd respondent vide Proceedings in C.No.1/B.C/SDPO-EAST/2020 dt.05.01.2020 and the same is being renewed from time-to-time on the rolls of Lalapet Police Station, Guntur Urban District.
(b) It is further contended that as per the A.P. Police Manual Standing Order No.602(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 SD/DCP/CP to continue his history sheet if in their opinion his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order or one affecting peace and tranquillity in the area or the victims are not 4 UDPR, J WP.No.2305 of 2020 coming forward to give complaint against him on account of threat from him. In the instant case, the petitioner is now facing two criminal cases i.e., Cr.No.489/2014 (C.C.No.964/2015) and Cr.No.385/2019. At this juncture, if the rowdy sheet is closed, there is every possibility that he may tamper the record and win over the witnesses. Further, due to fear of the petitioner no one has turned up to the police station to lodge any fresh complaint. Unless a close watch is being maintained against the unlawful activities of the petitioner, there is every chance that he may repeat the offences. The petitioner is habituated to lending money to the needy people and obtaining empty cheques and pronotes and when the borrowers committed default, he used to grab their properties and other assets. Therefore, a rowdy sheet is opened against him and hence, he does not deserve any relief. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.
4. Heard Sri P.V.N. Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Home representing the respondents.
5. The main plank of argument of Sri P.V.N. Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner since long has been legally engaged in money lending business and he never persecuted his borrowers by either demanding interest at exorbitant rates or obtaining their signatures on empty documents to take up legal action against them for higher amounts than the loan amounts. He would 5 UDPR, J WP.No.2305 of 2020 submit that some of the borrowers and professional rivals filed false complaints against the petitioner to intimidate him and to come to their terms and to forego the loan amounts and lawful interest but the petitioner did not budge to their unscrupulous demands. Ultimately the previous criminal complaints and cases foisted against him were ended in acquittal. The two cases which are now pending against him are of same ilk and the petitioner will bravely face them in a Court of law to vindicate his innocence and righteousness. However, the respondent authorities are not legally justified in opening a rowdy sheet against him basing on such false complaints holding that he is a habitual offender. He thus prayed to allow the writ petition.
6. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Home while opposing the writ petition would argue that the petitioner is a loan shark and with the help of his assistants sucks the blood of gullible borrowers by extracting usurious interest on loans and also obtaining their signatures on blank papers to extort them to file suits for exorbitant amounts if they fail to discharge the loans. Therefore, the victim-borrowers earlier filed criminal complaints against him, some of which were referred as false for want of proper evidence and one case was ended in acquittal. Now, two cases are pending against him
- one coming up for trial and another is in the investigation stage. Therefore, under the A.P. Police Manual Order 601(1) he can be termed as a rowdy and rightly so, a rowdy sheet was opened at the 6 UDPR, J WP.No.2305 of 2020 behest of the SDPO. As per the said order, review will be done in the month of December of every year and depending upon the fact situation, suitable order will be passed. He thus prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
7. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in this writ petition to allow?
8. Point: I gave my anxious consideration to the above respective submissions.
(a) Order No.601 of the A.P. Police Manual classifies certain persons as rowdies and says that rowdy sheets under Form No.80 can be opened against them. The said order reads thus:
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.
Sl. No. Classification of Persons
1 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, besides offences under chapter VIII, XV, XVII, XVIII and XXII of IPC 2 Persons bound over u/s 106, 107, 108 (1)(i) and 110 (e) and (g) of Cr.P.C.
3 Persons who have been convicted more than once in two consecutive years or under section 3, clause 12, of the AP Towns Nuisances Act, 1889 4 Persons who habitually tease women and girls and pass indecent remarks, including offences u/s 354A, B, C & 354 D IPC 5 Persons who have been charge sheeted under the offence of Rape (376, 376 A, C, D, E). (Entry to be made in Sex Offenders Register also). 6 Persons who have been charge sheeted under the offences of POCSO Act, 2012 and Acid attacks (326A and 326B of IPC) 7 Rowdy sheets for the rowdies residing in one Police Station area but found frequenting the other PSs area, can be maintained at all such 7 UDPR, J WP.No.2305 of 2020 Police Stations.
8 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 including 'loan sharks' 9 Persons who incite, instigate and participate in communal/caste or political riots.
10 Persons detained under the "AP Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986" or other Preventive Detention laws for a period of 6 months or more.
11 Persons on whom charge sheets filed under the offence of assault on public servants, under Arms Act and such other offences punishable with imprisonment of 2 years or more.
12 Persons on whom charge sheets filed under the offence of Murder and attempt to murder (302 and 307 of IPC).
13 Persons on whom charge sheets filed under the offence of Chain snatching.
14 Persons who are convicted under the Representation of People Act, 1951 for rigging, carrying away, damaging ballot paper, boxes and polling material.
(b) Coming to the case of petitioner, as per counter averments the respondent police were prompted to open rowdy sheet No.805/2020 against him vide Proceedings in C.No.1/B.C/SDPO- EAST/2020 dt.05.01.2020 in view of his involvement in the following cases:
1) Cr.No.118/2010 under Sections 324, 354, 509, 447, 506 r/w 34 IPC of Arandalpet Police Station (referred as False)
2) Cr.No.150/2010 under Sections 506, 323 IPC of Pedakakani Police Station (referred as false)
3) Cr.No.265/2013 under Section 420 IPC and Section 4 Rule of Pawn Brokers Act of Lalapet Police Station (ended in acquittal) 8 UDPR, J WP.No.2305 of 2020
4) Cr.No.489/2014 under Sections 384, 323, 509, 420, 506 r/w 34 IPC of Kothapeta Police Station (pending trial vide C.C.No.
5) Cr.No.85/2018 under Sections 324, 354, 384, 506 r/w 34 IPC of Lalapet Police Station (referred as false)
6) Cr.No.385/2019 under Sections 420, 468, 471, 342, 384, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sec. 4 of Pawn Brokers Act of Lalapet Police Station (case is under investigation) Admittedly, Cr.Nos.118/2010, 150/2010 & 85/2018 were referred as false, while Cr.No.265/2013 was ultimately ended in acquittal. Therefore, now C.C.No.964/2015 (Cr.No.489/2014) is pending trial whereas Cr.No.385/2019 is pending investigation. That being the factual position, as rightly submitted by the learned Government Pleader for Home, the petitioner's case comes under Order 601(1) since two identical cases for the offences under Sections 384, 506, 420 etc. offences are pending. However, it must be noted that the gravamen of the offences in these two cases is having the trappings of civil litigation, inasmuch as the allegation is that the petitioner is collecting usurious interest from the borrowers by obtaining their signatures on some blank papers. It appears none of the cases is proved against him either on civil side or criminal side. In this backdrop, in my considered view, the ends of justice will be sufficiently met if a direction is given to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order within a timeframe.9
UDPR, J WP.No.2305 of 2020
9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents 2 & 3 to consider the case of petitioner with reference to the past and present criminal cases in which the petitioner is involved and closure/acquittal of some of the cases and nature of the pending cases and their having the background of civil litigation etc. and pass a suitable order with regard to continuance/removal of rowdy sheet, within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. No costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending for consideration shall stand closed.
__________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J 06.10.2020 MS/MVA