Telangana High Court
Syed Khaled vs The State Of Telangana And 4 Others on 12 October, 2022
Author: B. Vijaysen Reddy
Bench: B. Vijaysen Reddy
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.26894 OF 2022
ORDER:
Heard Mr. Mohd. Muzafferullah Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for the respondents.
2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of respondent No.4 in opening and maintaining rowdy sheet against the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct respondent No.4 to close the rowdy sheet, which is being maintained against the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that rowdy sheet was opened against the petitioner on 12.07.2010 when he was involved in three criminal cases i.e., Crime No.211 of 2009 on the file of Abids Police Station, Hyderabad, for the offence punishable under Section 382 IPC; Crime No.62 of 2010 on the file of Mirchowk Police Station, Hyderabad, for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 427, 153(a) read with Section 149 IPC and Section 3 of 2 BVR, J W.P.No.26894 of 2022 the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984; and Crime No.66 of 2010 on the file of Mirchowk Police Station, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 436, 427 and 153-A of IPC. While the above cases were pending against the petitioner, he was implicated in other two cases i.e., Crime No.351 of 2014 on the file of Chatrinaka Police Station, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 302 & 506 read with Section 34 IPC and Crime No.173 of 2018 on the file of Mirchowk Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 415 & 506 IPC.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the case in Crime No.211 of 2019 ended in acquittal and subsequently, the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for Trial of Communal Offences Cases-cum- VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, has acquitted the petitioner on 30.12.2016 in S.C.No.298 of 2015 (Crime No.66 of 2010). Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that after full fledge trial, the learned IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, has acquitted the petitioner on 09.11.2017 in S.C.No.304 of 2015 3 BVR, J W.P.No.26894 of 2022 (Crime No.351 of 2014) and another case in Crime No.173 of 2018 ended in compromise.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that except one case, remaining cases pending against the petitioner have ended in acquittal and since 2018, the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case. Therefore, continuance of Rowdy Sheet against the petitioner which was opened on 12.07.2010 is unjustified and violative of Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India.
6. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.4, it is stated that petitioner was involved in five criminal cases as under:
"i) Crime No.198 of 2004 for the offences under Sections 392 of IPC Section 25 of Arms Act, on the file of Mirchowk Police Station. After completion of investigation charge sheet has been filed on the file of VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad vide C.C.No.595 of 2005 and the case is ended in acquittal on 04.04.2016.
ii) Crime No.211 of 2009 for the offences under Section 382 of IPC on the file of Abid Road Police Station. After completion of investigation charge sheet has been filed on the file of VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan 4 BVR, J W.P.No.26894 of 2022 Magistrate, Hyderabad and the case is ended in acquittal on 02.09.2015.
iii) Crime No.62 of 2010 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 427, 156 (a) R/w. 149 of IPC and Section 3 of PDPP Act, of IPC on the file of Mirchowk Police Station.
After completion of investigation charge sheet has been filed on the file of VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad vide C.C.No.14604 of 2019 and the same is pending for trial.
iv) Crime No.66 of 2010 for the offences under Sections 436, 427, 153 (a) of IPC on the file of Mirchowk Police Station. After completion of investigation charge sheet has been filed on the file of Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for Trial of Communal offences cases Cum VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad vide S.C.No.298 of 2015 and the case is ended in acquittal on 30.12.2016.
v) Crime No.351 of 2014 for the offences under Sections 302, 506 of IPC R/w.34 of IPC on the file of Chatrinaka Police Station. After completion of investigation charge sheet has been filed on the file of IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad vide S.C.No.304 of 2015 and the case is ended in acquittal on 09.11.2017.
vi) Crime No.173 of 2018 for the offences under Section 506 of IPC on the file of Mirchowk Police Station. After completion of investigation charge sheet has been filed on the file of VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad vide and the case is ended in compromise on 09.03.2019."
5
BVR, J W.P.No.26894 of 2022
7. Thus, as evident from the record, there is only one crime pending against the petitioner.
8. It is contended by learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home that rowdy sheet is continued against the petitioner to keep watch on his movements from time to time and in larger public interest, the cases are reviewed periodically and Police are entitled to watch the activities of rowdy sheeters/suspect sheeters even though no cases are pending against them.
9. However, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home has not brought to the notice of this Court any provision, more particularly Order No.601 of A.P. Police Manual or any judicial precedent to support his contention that rowdy sheet can be continued even after acquittal. Further, it appears that the rowdy sheet which was opened against the petitioner in the year 2010 is not reviewed from time to time and merely because the petitioner was involved in criminal cases subsequently, that does not empower the Police to continue the rowdy sheet for an indefinite period. 6
BVR, J W.P.No.26894 of 2022
10. Opening and continuance of rowdy sheet on the strength of involvement of a person in solitary case is not permissible as held by this Court in Tanuku Venkanna v. State of Andhra Pradesh1.
11. It is not in dispute that there is only one case i.e., C.C.No.14604 of 2019 (Crime No.62 of 2010) pending against the petitioner on the file of VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, continuance of rowdy sheet against the petitioner is unjust and arbitrary.
12. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
13. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY Date: 12.10.2022 KL 1 2020 SCC Online AP 2110