Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
G Narayanaswamy vs The State Of Ap on 29 September, 2020
Author: U. Durga Prasad Rao
Bench: U. Durga Prasad Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
Writ Petition No.4143 of 2019
ORDER:
The petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents in not closing the rowdy sheet against the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to the respondents to close the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner on the file of 3rd respondent Police Station.
2. The petitioner's case succinctly is thus:
The petitioner is aged 60 years and suffering with old age medical problems relating to heart. The petitioner was implicated in false cases during 1993-1994 and those cases ended in acquittal on the file of 1st Additional District Judge, Anantapur and Additional District Judge, Hindupur. At that time, rowdy sheet No.27/1993 was opened against him and the same is continuing for the last 27 years without any plausible reason. In spite of the petitioner's old age and health problem, the respondent police authorities have not closed the rowdy sheet. Prior to 2000, the petitioner actively participated in politics and now he is not involved in any political activities as his health is not permitting him. Now he is living by agriculture. Due to the pendency of the rowdy sheet, he is facing mental agony and time to time he was called to attend before the police. Under law a rowdy sheet cannot be continued if no case is pending against the person.
That apart, normally in the month of December of every year review 2 committee conducts review regarding the continuation of rowdy sheets. However, so far as the petitioner is concerned, for the reasons best known to the respondent police, the rowdy sheet is still continued without any justifiable reason.
Hence, the writ petition.
3. The 3rd respondent filed counter opposing the petition inter alia contending thus:
(a) It is stated that the petitioner has scant respect for the law and order as he was involved in the following criminal cases registered in the 3rd respondent police station. The status of those cases is thus:
(1) Cr.No.59/1993 under Sections 307, 302, 120(b) IPC and Sections 3, 4 & 6 of the Explosive Substance Act (ended in acquittal) (2) Cr.No.62/1994 under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307, 302 r/w 149 IPC and Sections 3 & 5 of the Explosive Substance Act (ended in acquittal) (3) Cr.No.27/2012 under Section 107 Cr.P.C (bound over) (4) Cr.No.188/2019 under Section 110(e) Cr.P.C (bound over)
(b) In view of the petitioner involving in murder cases, in order to curtail his unlawful activities, a rowdy sheet has been opened against the petitioner on 25.12.1996 with the permission of the then Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Dharmavaram Sub Division and same is being continued and renewed from time-to-time. 3
(c) Further, as per A.P. Police Manual Order No.601 a rowdy sheet can be opened against the persons who are involved in different types of cases including bound over cases under Section 106, 107, 108(1)(i) and 110(e) and (g) Cr.P.C. The Standing Order No.602(2) lays down that 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 the aforesaid authority is of the considered view that his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or the one affecting peace and tranquility in the area, or the victims are not coming forward to give complaint against him on account of threat from him.
(d) In view of the above rule position, though there are no cases registered or pending against the petitioner, however, due to the fear of the petitioner as he was previously involved in murder cases (though ended in acquittal), no one is coming forward to the police station to lodge any fresh complaint. Therefore, in view of the public interest and mainly to safeguard the interest of the residents of Kanaganapalli Police Station limits, where the petitioner is residing, the rowdy sheet is being continued. Unless and until a close watch is being maintained against the unlawful activites of the petitioner herein, there is every chance that he may repeat the offences. Therefore, the petition does not merit consideration and hence, the petition may be dismissed.
4
4. Heard Sri K. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Home representing the respondents.
5. Reiterating the petition averments, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even according to the counter averments, two criminal cases for the offence under Section 302 & 307 IPC registered against the petitioner in Cr.No.59/1993 and 62/1994 were already ended in acquittal and except the two petty bound over cases, there are no other criminal cases pending against him. Even in the bound over cases also, bound over proceedings were over and therefore, virtually no cases are pending against the petitioner. As such the respondents are not justified under law to continue the rowdy sheet which was opened in the year 1996. He would further argue that the cause shown for continuation of rowdy sheet is also whimsical. Except making a wild allegation that due to fear of petitioner none is coming forward to the police station to lodge any fresh complaint against him, the respondents have not produced any iota of material showing the particulars of the crimes in which they suspect the involvement of the petitioner but could not proceed for want of complaint. He thus prayed to allow the petition.
6. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Home argued that though the petitioner was acquitted in two major criminal cases for the offences under Section 302 IPC, still he was involved in bound over cases also. Unless the rowdy sheet is continued and a watch is kept 5 on him, the people for fear of the petitioner cannot come forward to complain against him.
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 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' 6 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 a rowdy sheet against him on 25.12.1996 in view of his involvement in the following cases:
(1) Cr.No.59/1993 under Sections 307, 302, 120(b) IPC and Sections 3, 4 & 6 of the Explosive Substance Act (ended in acquittal) (2) Cr.No.62/1994 under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307, 302 r/w 149 IPC and Sections 3 & 5 of the Explosive Substance Act (ended in acquittal) Admittedly, the petitioner was acquitted in both the cases. However, the rowdy sheet is being continued on the ground that subsequently he was involved in the following two bound over cases:
(1) Cr.No.27/2012 under Section 107 Cr.P.C (bound over) (2) Cr.No.188/2019 under Section 110(e) Cr.P.C (bound over)
(c) It appears that in the above cases the concerned Executive Magistrate directed the petitioner to be bound over. Thus it is an admitted case that as on the date of filing of the writ petition no fresh cases are pending against the petitioner. Then the question is whether 7 the respondent authorities are legally justified in continuing the rowdy sheet against the petitioner having opened it in the year 1996.
(d) Clause 12 of Order 601 says that rowdy sheet can be opened against persons on whom charge sheets filed under the offence of murder and attempt to murder (302 & 307 IPC). In my considered view, though concerned police have such power that does not mean that the said rowdy sheet can be continued against him when the main case itself was ended in acquittal. Once the judgment in the main case is pronounced, the charge sheet merges with the judgment and cannot have an independent identity. So the rowdy sheet cannot be continued merely because the petitioner was earlier involved in two criminal cases involving the offences under Section 302 & 307 IPC since they ended in acquittal.
e) So far as bound over cases are concerned, as per clause 2 rowdy sheet can no doubt be opened when persons were bound over under Sections 106, 107, 108(1)(i) and 110(e) & (g) of Cr.P.C. In the present case, bind over proceedings seems to have completed.
Therefore, virtually no criminal cases as narrated in Order No.601 are pending against the petitioner warranting continuation of rowdy sheet. The justification for continuation according to the respondents is that the people are afraid of the petitioner and thereby they are not coming before the 3rd respondent police station to lodge complaints against the petitioner and therefore, rowdy sheet has to be continued against him. In this regard Order 602 of the A.P. Police Manual reads thus: 8
Period of retention of History Sheets of Suspects/Rowdies:-
"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 SDPO 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."
Order 602(2) says that even though a suspect/rowdy against whom a history sheet is pending is not figuring as accused in the previous five years after the last case in which he was involved, still the concerned authority can continue his history sheet if in the considered view of the said authority, his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, or affecting peace and tranquility in the area of the victims and they are not coming forward to give complaint against him on account of threat from him. Now the main reason shown in paragraph No.6 of the counter for continuation of the rowdy sheet is that for fear of petitioner, no one is coming forward to the police station to lodge any fresh complaints against him. In my considered view, mere allegation is not sufficient to justify the continuation of rowdy sheet. The respondent police should specify the crimes in which, according to them, the petitioner is involved but crimes could not be registered as the complainants did not come 9 forward to give complaint for fear of the petitioner. Without producing some plausible material, it cannot be simply alleged that for fear of the petitioner people are not lodging fresh complaints against him. Such a ground is untenable and does not stand before legal scrutiny.
(f) Thus, at the outset I do not find any justified grounds for continuation of the rowdy sheet against the petitioner which was admittedly opened on 25.12.1996. Since no criminal cases are now pending and no fresh complaints are registered, the rowdy sheet has to be removed.
9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the respondent authorities are directed to close the rowdy sheet against the petitioner. However, this order will not preclude the respondent authorities to open a rowdy sheet against the petitioner in future if he involves in the offences narrated in Order 601 of the A.P. Police Manual. No costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
__________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J 29.09.2020 MVA