Telangana High Court
Syed Hameed Shah vs The State Of Telangana on 13 June, 2023
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No. 5310 of 2020
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the action of respondents, particularly respondent Nos.2 to 5 in opening rowdy sheet against the petitioner in the year 2007, and continuing the same without considering the representation of the Petitioner dated 24-02-2020 seeking closure of the said rowdy sheet, as being illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
2. Petitioner contends that the respondent no.5, by obtaining permission from the respondent no.4, opened a rowdy sheet against the petitioner on the ground that he is involved in two cases, being Cr. No. 508 of 2005, registered for the offences under Section 324 IPC and Cr. No.623 of 2007, registered for the offence punishable under section 307 IPC, both on the file of Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad.
3. It is contended that the respondent authorities, particularly respondent no. 2 to 5 have opened the rowdy sheet against the petitioner in a mechanical manner without taking note of the fact 2 that, both these cases were filed by his brother due to internal disputes between the parties, and not an outsider. It is further contended that at that time, the petitioner was eking his livelihood by working as a driver abroad and had hardly visited India during the said period.
4. It is further contended that, on filing of chargesheets the aforesaid cases were numbered as CC No. 795/ 2006 and SC No. 358/2008 respectively and that the concerned Court, on conducting trial, acquitted the petitioner on 12.01.2016 and 28.10.2017 respectively.
5. Petitioner further contends that despite of being aware of the petitioner's acquittal in the cases falsely foisted against him, the respondent authorities are continuing to maintain the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner way back in the year 2007; and that the respondent No.5, on the pretext of continuance of the rowdy sheet, is calling the petitioner to the police station frequently and making him to sit for hours together.
6. Petitioner further contends that after the concerned Courts recording acquittal in the above two cases registered against him 3 in the year 2016 and 2017, he expected the respondent authorities to close the rowdy sheet opened against him on their own. As the respondent no. 4 and 5 continued to maintain the rowdy sheet, the petitioner approached the respondent no.3, and submitted a representation dt.24.02.2020 requesting to close the rowdy sheet, however no action has been taken by the respondent no.3 thereon.
7. Thus, petitioner contends that the action on part of the respondent no. 2 to 5 in continuing the rowdy sheet against the petitioner and non-consideration of representation dt.24.02.2020 is illegal and arbitrary and in violation of Article 14, 19(1) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
8. The respondents on the other hand, by filing counter affidavit through respondent no. 4, contended that as the petitioner, apart from having involved in two criminal cases, being Cr.No 508/2005, and Cr.No.623/2007, continued indulging in the commission of lawless acts, involving in breach of public peace and being an unlawful character locally, it has become incumbent on part of the respondent-police to open rowdy sheet, to keep a watch on his activities and to curtail unlawful activities. 4
9. It is also stated that since petitioner was involved in the above two crimes, after obtaining necessary permission from the respondent no.4 on 17.07.2007, a rowdy sheet has been opened against the petitioner on the file of respondent no.5 and the same is being maintained and continued up to date.
10. The respondents would further contend that, subsequent to the petitioner submitting representation dt.24.02.2020 to the respondent no.3 requesting to close the rowdy sheet, the same was endorsed to the respondent no.4 on 25.02.2020 for enquiry and necessary action; and that subsequent to the said endorsement, respondent no.4 enquired into the matter, which revealed that petitioner herein, apart from being involved in the above criminal cases, is also creating nuisance to general public and affecting peace in the area, but due to fear, nobody came forward to lodge any complaint, and hence, it has become necessary for continuing the rowdy sheet to watch his activities as per A.P. Police Manual Standing Order Number 601.
11. It is also contended that, since the enquiry caused revealed that the petitioner is continuing to indulge himself in creating nuisance with the general public, even though the earlier two 5 criminal cases registered against him resulted in acquittal, the representation submitted by the petitioner for closing the rowdy sheet has been rejected and the order of rejection dt.24.03.2020 was communicated to the petitioner on 25.03.2020 at the address of the petitioner by affixation on the wall of his house, since petitioner was not available at the said premises and the house was found locked.
12. The respondents, on the above basis, contend that the continuation of the rowdy sheet against the petitioner was only to monitor the movements of the petitioner to ensure maintenance of peace in the area and except monitoring the activities of the petitioner, the respondent police did not interfere with the life and liberty of the petitioner at any point of time and, thus, sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
13. Heard Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents, and perused the record.
14. Admittedly, when the respondent police opened rowdy sheet against the petitioner, there were only two cases registered against 6 him. It is also an admitted fact that the said cases registered against the petitioner under the provisions of Section 324 IPC and 307 IPC resulted in acquittal as noted hereinabove.
15. Insofar as opening of Rowdy Sheet on the basis of involvement in two criminal cases is concerned, this Court in Sadat Ali v. Commissioner of Police1, by referring to various decisions of the Apex court and this court rendered earlier, and also on due consideration of The Standing Orders 601 and 602 of the A.P. Police Manual, dealing with the opening of rowdy sheet and retention of history / rowdy sheet, had held as under-
"The inescapable fact glaring from the record is that at the time the rowdy sheet was opened in the name of the petitioner in June 2009, only two cases were registered against him. Thus, the requirement of involvement in at least more than two cases for interfering that he was a habitual offender was not established. The opening of the rowdy sheet in the name of the petitioner was therefore tainted in law in its very inception. Continuance of the said rowdy sheet by the police authorities ignoring the law laid down by this court, therefore, cannot be sustained."
16. The facts of the present case are no different from the facts of the case as considered by this Court in Sadat Ali's case (supra).
17. As noted herein above, on the date of opening of rowdy sheet 1 WP No.19194 of 2012, dated 24.08.2015 7 there were only two cases that have been registered against the petitioner. Even those two cases which formed the basis for the respondent-Police to open rowdy sheet against the petitioner subsequently resulted in acquittal.
18. Though the respondent no.4 by the counter affidavit has stated that the petitioner is continuing to involve himself in creating nuisance to the general public, even after his acquittal in the above two criminal cases, no case to that effect has been registered against the petitioner as of today.
19. Though, the respondents / police claim that out of fear nobody is coming forward to lodge complaint against the petitioner for his indulging/ creating nuisance with the general public, in absence of any such details being placed on record, the said statement of the respondents cannot be accepted as a valid basis or reason for continuance of the rowdy sheet.
20. Further, in absence of any complaint being lodged against the petitioner by anybody, the above statement of the respondent no.4 on the face of it appears to this court a self-serving statement to justify the action of continuing to maintain the rowdy sheet. 8
21. If the respondent police intends to continue the rowdy sheet against the petitioner opened in the year 2007, even after a decade on the ground of his continuing to involve / indulge in creating nuisance, it is incumbent on part of the authorities to at least bring on record, any such subsequent event or incident whereby / wherein the petitioner has involved / indulged in creating nuisance to general public or affecting the peace in the area. The respondents cannot escape from the responsibility to bring such instances / incidents on record, by merely stating that due to fear nobody came forward to lodge any complaint. Even if no complaint is lodged by the victims on account of threat from the petitioner, the authorities at least should have put on record the details as to date of occurrence of any incident and the involvement of the petitioner in any such incident/ indulging himself in creating nuisance with the general public, to justify their action for continuance of rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner. The counter affidavit filed by respondent no.4 is bereft of any details of the subsequent incidents involving the petitioner in creating nuisance or activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or affecting peace and tranquility in the area, except making reference to the two criminal cases registered in the year 9 2005 and 2007 as mentioned in para 3 of the counter-affidavit.
22. Further, even the Memo dt.24.03.2020, by which the representation of the petitioner has been rejected does not record or make a mention as to involvement of the petitioner in any subsequent incidents affecting maintenance of peace in the area.
23. On the other hand, the aforesaid Memo dt.24.03.2020 mentions the reason to continue/ maintain the rowdy sheet against the petitioner as "who is in O.V. for more than 7 years". The abbreviation 'O.V.' connotes "out of view" thereby indicating that the petitioner was not in the locality. Thus, the stand of respondents in the counter-affidavit as to the indulging / involvement of petitioner in subsequent incidents is contrary to the reasons stated in Memo dt.24.03.2020.
24. Ironically, the recording made by the respondents themselves in the memo dated 24.03.2020, extends force to the assertion of the petitioner that he was working as driver abroad, thereby the possibility of his involvement in either causing nuisance or affecting peace in area would be remote. In view of self- contradictory stand of respondents, apparent on the face of record, 10 the counter affidavit of the respondents is liable to be rejected.
25. Further, the very act of opening a rowdy sheet against the petitioner on the basis of his involvement in two criminal cases, itself is contrary to Standing Order 601 of the AP Police Manual and would have to be considered as tainted in law in its very inception as has been held by this Court in Sadath Ali's case (supra), at the first instance. Secondly, continuing the said rowdy sheet even after the petitioner is acquitted in the above two crimes after full-fledged trial by the competent Courts, is in further contravention of the procedure prescribed for continuation of the rowdy sheet as prescribed in Standing Order 602 of the A.P. Police Manual.
26. Thus, considered from any angle, the action of the respondents in continuing the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner in the year 2007 and rejecting the representation of the petitioner dt.24.02.2020 by the respondent no.3 vide order dt.24.03.2020 cannot be held to be valid for it to be sustained, inasmuch as it infringes the rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
11
27. In view of the conclusions arrived at as above, the present Writ Petition is allowed, the respondents are directed to forthwith close the rowdy sheet being maintained in the name of the petitioner on the file of the respondent no.5. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner involves in further crimes, this will not preclude the respondents from opening a fresh rowdy sheet against him as per law.
28. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.
___________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J Date: 13.06.2023.
Vsv