Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Nallagorla Jagadeesh, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 26 August, 2020
Author: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NOs.11475, 10772, 10779,
11477, 12373 AND 12974 OF 2020
COMMON ORDER:
All these writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the action of the respondents in opening rowdy sheet against the petitioners in different crimes on the file of various police stations. The details of petitioners, crimes registered against them on the file of various police stations, offences allegedly committed by them, result of investigation and rowdy sheet opened against them are tabulated hereunder for better appreciation of the case:
A B C D E F G
S.
N
W.P.No Name of Crime Police Offence(s) Result of Rowdy sheet
investigation
o the No. Station allegedly No.
petitioner committed
1 11475/20 Nallagorla 200/2019 Mangalagiri Section 307 r/w Petitioner 864-C of
Mohana Rao Town 34 I.P.C not guilty Mangalagiri
Town
Police Station
2 10772/20 Nallagorla 200/2019 Mangalagiri Section 307 r/w Petitioner 866-C of
Jagadeesh Town 34 I.P.C not guilty Mangalagiri
Town
Police Station
3 10779/20 Nallagorla 200/2019 Mangalagiri Section 307 r/w Petitioner 865-C of
Jagan @ Town 34 I.P.C not guilty Mangalagiri
Jagan Town
Mohan Rao Police Station
4 10777/20 Burri Baji 200/2019 Mangalagiri Section 307 r/w Petitioner 867-C of
Town 34 I.P.C not guilty Mangalagiri
Town
Police Station
5 12373/20 Paturi 21/2008 Kothapet Sections 120-B, Petitioner 322-A of
Brahmaiah Police 147, 148, 307, not guilty Arundalpet
Station, 302 r/w 149 Police Station
Guntur IPC and Section
3 and 5 of
Explosive
Substances Act
6 12974/20 Mailavarapu 55/2014 Nidamarru Section 353,
Surendra Police 341, 506 r/w
Kumar & Station, West 34 I.P.C - -
Godavari
Mailavarapu Disrict Sections 420 &
Lalaliah 53/2016 468 I.P.C
MSM,J
W.P Nos.11475, 10772, 10779,
11477, 12373 AND 12974 of 2020
2
The crime numbers, police station, offence(s) allegedly
committed by the petitioners in Serial Nos. 1 to 4 are one and the same, whereas, in Serial Nos. 5 and 6, crimes were registered on the file of different police stations for various offences.
From the above table, it is clear that, petitioners in the writ petitions mentioned against Serial Nos. 1 to 4 are involved in Crime No. 200 of 2019 on the file of Mangalagiri Town Police Station, Guntur District, for the offence punishable under Sections 307 r/w 34 I.P.C. Later, investigation was completed, filed charge sheet before the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri. Later, committed to the Assistant Sessions Court, Mangalagiri in P.R.C.No.20 of 2019, registered the same as Sessions Case No.559 of 2019 and ended in acquittal vide calendar and judgment dated 12.12.2019.
The case of the petitioners in writ petitions mentioned against Serial Nos. 1 to 4 is that, the petitioners were found guilty and acquitted for offences punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 I.P.C, but, based on filing of charge sheet against the petitioners in writ petitions mentioned against Serial Nos. 1 to 4, Rowdy Sheet Nos. 864-C, 866-C, 865-C and 867-C were opened on the file of Mangalagiri Town Police Station. Similarly, in W.P.No. 12373 of 2020, Crime No.21 of 2008 was registered on the file of Kothapet Police Station, Guntur, against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 147, 148, 307, 302 r/w 149 IPC and Section 3 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act. Thereupon, crime was transferred to Arundalpet Police Station and later, based on MSM,J W.P Nos.11475, 10772, 10779, 11477, 12373 AND 12974 of 2020 3 filing of charge sheet, Rowdy Sheet No.322-A was opened on the file of Arundalpet Police Station.
In the writ petitions mentioned against Serial Nos. 1 to 4, the contention of the petitioners before this Court is that, when the accused were found not guilty and acquitted for various offences based on the charge sheets filed and evidence adduced by the prosecution, opening of rowdy sheet against them and its continuation is illegal. More over, as per Andhra Pradesh Police Manual Standing Order 601, mere filing of one 'charge sheet' against the petitioners is not sufficient when the clause specifies plural 'charge sheets'. Therefore, filing of charge sheet under Section 307 I.P.C is not sufficient and requested this Court to issue a direction to the respondents to close the rowdy sheets opened against these petitioners, shown in Column No.(G) of the table referred above.
Whereas, in W.P.No.12974 of 2020, Sri Srinivasa Reddy Tetalli, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the offences punishable under Sections 353, 341, 506 r/w 34 I.P.C which are subject mater of C.C.No.501 of 2014 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadepalligudem are not sufficient to open a rowdy sheet against these petitioners, more particularly, when this Court granted stay of all further proceedings in W.P.No.33623 of 2016 and requested to issue direction to the respondent/police to close the rowdy sheet(s) opened against the petitioners in W.P.No.12974 of 2020.
In all the writ petitions, the contention of the respondents/police before this Court is that, though the petitioners are acquitted for various offences after full-fledged trial, opening of MSM,J W.P Nos.11475, 10772, 10779, 11477, 12373 AND 12974 of 2020 4 rowdy sheet cannot be faulted, in view of Andhra Pradesh Police Manual Standing Order 601 and specified the grounds on which a rowdy sheet can be opened. The learned Government Pleader for Home also narrated the circumstances under which a rowdy sheet can be opened.
The reason for opening rowdy sheet is involvement of these petitioners in various crimes. No doubt, Standing Order 602(2) of A.P.P.M specifies circumstances under which a history sheet can be opened. Standing Order 602 of A.P.Police Manual stipulates that care should be taken to see that History Sheets are opened under this Order only for persons who are likely to turn out to be habitual criminals or who are members of organised crime syndicates or such organisations who had history or plan for violence and therefore, require close surveillance. The material and information collected to obtain orders from the Superintendent of Police or other officers authorised to order opening of history sheets in this category should bring out the above requirements. Finally, it is contended that, in view of the involvement of these petitioners in various grave crimes, none of the public are coming forward to lodge complaints against the petitioners in the police station, though they are not involved in fresh crimes. Therefore, to safeguard the interests of residents of the villages where the petitioners are residing, the concerned police after obtaining permission from the competent authority opened a rowdy sheet against these petitioners and finally requested to dismiss the writ petitions.
MSM,J W.P Nos.11475, 10772, 10779, 11477, 12373 AND 12974 of 2020 5 During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners Sri C. Prakash Reddy in all the writ petitions would contend that, opening of rowdy sheet by exercising power under Andhra Pradesh Police Manual Standing Order 601 against the petitioners mentioned in Column (B) is a serious illegality, as they were already acquitted and mere filing of one charge sheet against the petitioners is not sufficient to open a rowdy sheet in view of the language used in Clause (12) of Andhra Pradesh Police Manual Standing Order 601, as Clause (12) of the Standing Order 601 refers only to "charge sheets"
for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 I.P.C and in those circumstances, it is not sufficient to continue the rowdy sheets opened against these petitioners.
Whereas, in W.P.No.12974 of 2020, only one charge sheet is filed against the petitioners in Crime No.55 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 341, 506 r/w 34 I.P.C but they were quashed by the High Court vide orders in Crl.P.No.7863 of 2014 dated 23.07.2014. Thereby, the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners in W.P.No.12974 of 2020 do not fall within any of the clauses of Andhra Pradesh Police Manual Standing Order 601 to open a rowdy sheet against the petitioners and finally, requested to close the rowdy sheets opened against all the petitioners shown in Column No. (G) of the table on the file of different police stations by placing reliance on judgment of this Court in Yerramseti Venugopal Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh1.
Whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home vehemently contended that the word "charge sheets" in Clause 12 of Andhra Pradesh Police Manual Standing Order 601, though 1 Writ Petition Nos.17667, 17668, 18301 & 18305 of 2019 dated 12.05.2020 MSM,J W.P Nos.11475, 10772, 10779, 11477, 12373 AND 12974 of 2020 6 indicates plural charge sheets, it can be read as singular in view of Section 3(35) of the A.P. General Clauses Act, 1991. Mere acquittal of the petitioners in writ petitions mentioned against Serial Nos.1 to 5 is not sufficient to direct the third respondent to close the rowdy sheets against the petitioners, as there is every possibility of committing similar offences, if rowdy sheets are closed against them. Apart from that, keeping in mind the public interest and to safeguard the interest of the residents of the villages where the petitioners are residing, rowdy sheets cannot be closed and requested to dismiss the writ petitions.
Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available on record, the points that arise for consideration are as follows:
1. Whether filing of single charge sheet against these petitioners and opening of a rowdy sheet based on a single charge sheet filed against the petitioners in writ petitions shown in Serial Nos. 1 to 5, either under Sections 302 or 307 I.P.C is sufficient to open a rowdy sheet, if any. Whether the respondents/police be directed to close the rowdy sheet(s) opened against these petitioners in view of their acquittal by the competent Sessions Court as shown in Column No. (F) of the table?
2. Whether filing of charge sheet against the petitioners in W.P.No.12974 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 341, 506 r/w 34 I.P.C and Sections 420 and 468 I.P.C vide Crime No. 55 of 2014 on the file of Nidamarru Police Station, West Godavari District, is sufficient to open a rowdy sheet in terms of Andhra Pradesh Police Manual Standing Order 601. If not, whether the third respondent be directed to close the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioners in W.P.No.12974 of 2020?
MSM,J W.P Nos.11475, 10772, 10779, 11477, 12373 AND 12974 of 2020 7 P O I N T NO.1:
Undisputedly, the petitioners in writ petitions shown in Serial Nos.1 to 4 were tried and acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 I.P.C by the competent Sessions Court vide calendar and judgment in Sessions Case No.559 of 2019 dated 12.12.2019. Thereafter, no charge sheets were filed or opened against these petitioners either for the offences punishable under Sections 302 or 307 I.P.C. Similarly, the petitioner in W.P.No.12373 of 2020 was tried for the offences punishable under Section 120-B, 147, 148, 307 r/w 149 I.P.C, Sections 3 & 5 of Explosive Substances Act and Section 27(1) of the Arms Act. The petitioner in the said writ petition was tried and found not guilty and acquitted by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, vide Calendar in Sessions Case No.460 of 2008 dated 25.07.2019.
A copy of the calendar and judgment in Sessions Case No.559 of 2019 dated 12.12.2019 and Sessions Case No.460 of 2008 dated 25.07.2019 pertaining to writ petitions of Serial Nos. 1 to 5 are placed on record. It is an undisputed fact that, no further crimes were registered against the petitioners in writ petitions mentioned against Serial Nos. 1 to 5, subsequent to acquittal, finding them not guilty on the file of any competent court.
The first ground urged before this Court is that, when Standing Order 601 specifies as to the circumstances under which a rowdy sheet can be opened, mere filing of one charge sheet against the petitioners in writ petitions mentioned against Serial Nos. 1 to 5 is not sufficient, as Clause (12) specifically contemplated filing of "charge sheets" i.e. plural and placed reliance on the judgment of MSM,J W.P Nos.11475, 10772, 10779, 11477, 12373 AND 12974 of 2020 8 this Court reported in B. Satyanarayana Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh2, wherein the Division Bench of this Court held as follows:
10. The question that is required to be considered in every case is as to when a person can be called as a person who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences involving a breach of the peace? Whether involvement of a person even in a solitary case resulting in a breach of the peace is enough to characterise such person as a person who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences involving a breach of the peace?
The very expressions 'habitually commit', 'attempt to commit' and 'abet the commission of' offences indicate the requirement that at least two or more cases have been registered against the person concerned to characterise such person as a person who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences.
12. We are required to notice that the word 'habit' implies a tendency or capacity resulting from the frequent repetition of the same acts. The words by 'habits' and 'habitually' imply frequent practice or use. The word 'habit' means persistence in doing an act, a fact which is capable of proof by adducing evidence of the commission of a number of similar acts. 'Habitually' must be taken to mean repeatedly or persistently. (See: The Law Lexicon). It is thus clear that unless the acts complained of are more than one, it cannot be held that the involvement of a person even in a solitary case itself forms the basis for classifying such person as 'habitually committing the offences' involving disturbance to the public peace and tranquillity.
14. The appellant in the instant case is involved in one criminal case and charge sheet was filed against him under Sections 324, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The offences alleged against the appellant herein have nothing to do with the breach of peace. The solitary incident, in which the appellant herein is alleged to have involved, itself cannot constitute any basis or ground to classify him as a rowdy-sheeter. In the present case, rowdy sheet was opened against the petitioners not on the ground of habitual commission of offences, but on the ground that a charge sheet was filed against the petitioners in writ petitions mentioned against Serial Nos. 1 to 5 for various offences shown in Column No.(E). The petitioners mentioned against Serial Nos. 1 to 5 were found not guilty and acquitted. The above judgment mostly dealt with a situation where a rowdy sheet was 2 W.A.No.1874 of 2003 dated 04.11.2003 MSM,J W.P Nos.11475, 10772, 10779, 11477, 12373 AND 12974 of 2020 9 opened on the ground that the petitioner was habituated to commit offences, causing breach of peace. Therefore, the principle laid down in the above judgment cannot be applied to the present facts of the case. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the circumstances under which a rowdy sheet can be opened under the orders of SP/DCP and ACP/SDPO while extracting Andhra Pradesh Police Manual (A.P.P.M henceforth) Standing Order 601. A rowdy sheet may be opened in accordance with Standing Order No.601 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual, Standing Order No.601 reads as follows:
"The following persons may be classified as rowdies and Rowdy Sheets (from 80) may be opened for them under the orders of the SP/DCP and ACP/SDPO.
1. Persons who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of, offence involving a breach of the peace, disturbance to public order and security.
2.. Persons bound over under Sections 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 under sections 59 and 70 of the Hyderabad City Police Act or under Section 3, Clause 12, of the A.P. Towns Nuisances Act.
4. Persons who habitually tease woman and girls and pass indecent remarks including offences.
5. Persons who have been charge sheeted under the offence of rape.
6. Persons who have been charge sheeted under the offences of PCSO act, 2012 and Acid Attacks.
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.
9. Persons who incite and instigate 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, 1966 for a period of 6 months or more.
MSM,J W.P Nos.11475, 10772, 10779, 11477, 12373 AND 12974 of 2020 10
11. Persons on whom charge sheets filed under the offence of assault on public servants, under Arms Act and such 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.
13. Persons on whom charge sheets filed under the offence of chain snatching.
14. Persons who are convicted for offences under the Representatives of the Peoples Act, 1951, for rigging and carrying away ballot papers, Boxes and other polling material."
Against the petitioners in writ petitions mentioned against Serial Nos. 1 to 4, only charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 I.P.C was filed. They were tried and found not guilty vide calendar and judgment in Sessions Case No.559 of 2019 dated 12.12.2019 . As on date, no charge sheet is pending against the petitioners mentioned in Serial Nos. 1 to 4. Mere use of word 'charge sheets' in Clause 12 of Standing Order 601 for the offences punishable under Section 302 or 307 I.P.C is not a ground to issue a direction to the respondents/Police to cancel charge sheet as plural can be read as singular, in view of the law declared by this Court in Yerramseti Venugopal Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (referred supra), where this Court held as follows:
"Therefore, a close scrutiny of Order 601 pellucidly tells us that offences like Rape, Acid attacks, offences under POCSO Act, 2012, offences involving assault on public servants, committing offences under Arms Act appear to have been rated as grave offences by the framers of the A.P. Police Manual and considered that a single charge sheet for such offences was sufficient for opening rowdy sheet. It is in this context when Serial No.12 is perused, it is mentioned therein that persons on whom charge sheets filed under the offence of murder and attempt to murder (302 & 307 IPC), can be classified as rowdies and rowdy sheets can be opened. There is no gain saying that the offence of murder and its attempt are grave offences.
So, going by the previous entries in Serial Nos.5, 6, & 11, it can be said that a single charge sheet for the offence of murder (302 IPC) or attempt to murder (307 IPC) is suffice to open a rowdy sheet. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, plural noun "charge sheets" is employed because two distinct offences i.e., murder and attempt to murder MSM,J W.P Nos.11475, 10772, 10779, 11477, 12373 AND 12974 of 2020 11 are referred there. In my considered view, Serial No.12 can also be interpreted otherwise as- "persons on whom charge sheet is filed under the offence of murder or attempt to murder (302 & 307 IPC)". Therefore, this Court agrees with the contention of the learned Government Pleader that a single charge sheet is suffice. Even otherwise, as submitted by him, the term "charge sheets" can be interpreted as singular noun "charge sheet" by virtue of Section 3(35) of the A.P. General Clauses Act, 1891 which says that words in the singular shall include the plural and words in the plural shall include the singular. In the case of Rinku Alias Hukku (supra 4), the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court interpreted the word "activities" appearing in Section 2(c) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-social Activities Prevention Act, 1986 as "activity". In the instant case, if the word "charge sheets" is interpreted as "charge sheet", then Serial No.12 shall be read as "Persons on whom charge sheet is filed under the offence of murder or attempt to murder (302 or 307 IPC). For the aforesaid reasons I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for petitioners that more than one charge sheet is essential"
In view of law declared in the judgment referred supra, filing of single charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 I.P.C is sufficient to enable the police to open rowdy sheet against the petitioners. Thus, in view of the principle, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that filing of single charge of sheet is not sufficient to open rowdy sheet is without any merit and the same is hereby rejected. But, at the same time, in the same judgment, learned single Judge of this Court in Paragraph No.14 held as follows:
"Firstly, that there is every chance that he may gain over the witnesses and secondly, due to fear of the petitioners no one has turned up to the police station to lodge any fresh complaints. It must be said that first ground is not envisaged in Order 602. Even otherwise if the petitioners made any attempt to win over the witnesses in Cr.No.304/2019, the concerned police can report to the Court where the case is pending for cancellation of the bail of the petitioners or for taking other suitable action. The second ground is concerned, except alleging that no victim has turned up to the police station to lodge any fresh complaints for fear of petitioners, no plausible material is placed before the Court in that regard. It is incomprehensible as to how the respondent police came to know that the petitioners MSM,J W.P Nos.11475, 10772, 10779, 11477, 12373 AND 12974 of 2020 12 committed some other offences when none of the victims came forward to the police station to lodge fresh complaints. Thus, both the grounds shown are not sustainable in the eye of law.
(Emphasis supplied) In any view of the mater, winning over any witnesses by the petitioners in writ petitions mentioned against Serial Nos. 1 to 5 does not arise, as no case is pending against them, as they were already found not guilty and acquitted for the offences.
The only contention that has to be considered by this Court is due to fear of these petitioners, no one is coming forward to the police station to lodge any fresh complaint. But, it is not a ground to open a rowdy sheet strictly in terms of Standing Order 601.
On close scrutiny of Clause (12) of Standing Order 601, it is clear that, rowdy sheet can be opened only against persons whom charge sheets are filed for the offences of 'Murder' or 'Attempt to Murder'. But, the petitioners in writ petitions mentioned against Serial Nos. 1 to 4 were found not guilty long back and no complaint was lodged against them, subsequent to their acquittal for various offences. Therefore, opening/continuation of rowdy sheet against the petitioners in writ petitions mentioned against Serial Nos. 1 to 4 is unnecessary. Moreover, a bare look at the order of the Sub- Divisional Police Officer, North Sub-Division, Guntur Urban in C.No.41/BCs/SDPO-NORTH/GTR(U)/2019 dated 27.09.2019 in opening rowdy sheet against petitioners in writ petitions mentioned against Serial Nos. 1 to 4, a specific reason was mentioned for opening of rowdy sheet against the petitioners in writ petitions mentioned against Serial Nos. 1 to 4 is as follows:
MSM,J W.P Nos.11475, 10772, 10779, 11477, 12373 AND 12974 of 2020 13 S.No Name of the Accused Details of the Case Involved 1 Nallagorla Mohana Rao Cr.No.200/2019 u/s 307 2 Nallagorla Jagan @ r/w 34 IPC of Mangalagiri Jagan Mohan Rao Nallagorla Jagadeesh Town P.S 3 4 Burri Baji The reason mentioned in Column No.2 of the table stated above is pendency of Crime No.200 of 2019 against the petitioners in writ petitions mentioned against Serial Nos. 1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 I.P.C. Mere pendency of crime is not sufficient to open a rowdy sheet and in fact, by the time the rowdy sheet is opened, the case was committed to the Sessions Court by the Magistrate concerned, after filing charge sheet after completion of investigation by the Additional Magistrate of First Class, Mangalagiri and the petitioners in writ petitions mentioned against Serial Nos. 1 to 4 were not found guilty for the offences vide Calendar and Judgement in Sessions Case No.559 of 2019 dated 12.12.2019. Therefore, by the time of opening rowdy sheet, no crime is pending against the petitioners in writ petitions mentioned against Serial Nos. 1 to 4. However, as seen from the order of the Sub- Divisional Police Officer, North Sub-Division, Guntur Urban in C.No.41/BCs/SDPO-NORTH/GTR(U)/2019 dated 27.09.2019, which is under challenge, the reason is only pendency of Crime No.200 of 2019. Whereas, in the counter affidavit, the order of the Sub- Divisional Police Officer, North Sub-Division, Guntur Urban invented a different story that the public are not coming forward to the police station to lodge any fresh complaint due to fear. This was not a ground for opening of a rowdy sheet either under Standing Order MSM,J W.P Nos.11475, 10772, 10779, 11477, 12373 AND 12974 of 2020 14 601 or as per the order of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, North Sub-Division, Guntur Urban in C.No.41/BCs/SDPO- NORTH/GTR(U)/2019 dated 27.09.2019. Therefore, when the petitioners in writ petitions mentioned against Serial Nos. 1 to 4 were found not guilty and acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 I.P.C, continuation of rowdy sheet ad infinitum against them may infringe their fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, when the petitioners in Serial Nos. 1 to 4 were acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 I.P.C, continuation of rowdy sheet against them is illegal though cases registered against these petitioners were disposed of by the competent authority, but continuing rowdy sheet are opened against these petitioners.
According to Standing Order 602(2) of Andhra Pradesh Police Manual, 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.
In the present facts of the case, involvement of these petitioners in any such incident specified under Standing Order 602(2) i.e. acts 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 MSM,J W.P Nos.11475, 10772, 10779, 11477, 12373 AND 12974 of 2020 15 from him are not reported. In the absence of such allegation, very continuation of rowdy sheet is illegal. But, still, the respondents are continuing rowdy sheet and compelling the petitioners to appear before the police in the guise of keeping watch on them. Even otherwise, the police can keep watch on the petitioners, if required, when they are moving outside, but when they are in house, their privacy cannot be infringed in view of the alleged watch on the petitioners. That itself amounts to intrusion into the privacy of these petitioners which is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, in the absence of any reason that these petitioners are involved in any incident prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or one affecting peace and tranquillity in the area as referred under Standing Order 602(2) of Andhra Pradesh Police Manual, very continuation of rowdy sheet opened against these petitioners is a grave illegality and thereby the rowdy sheets are liable to be closed, as no charge sheet is pending against the petitioners for any of the offences punishable either under Section 302 or 307 I.P.C to file a charge sheet for one offence is not sufficient. Except the allegation that no victim is turning up to the police station to lodge any fresh complaint due to fear of the petitioners in Serial No.1 to 4, no plausible material is placed before this Court and in that regard, it is incomprehensive as to how the police came to know that the petitioners committed similar offence when no victim approached the police for lodging the report. Hence, rowdy sheet(s) opened against the petitioners viz., (1) Nallagorla Mohana Rao, (2) Nallagorla Jagadeesh, (3) Nallagorla Jagan @ Jagan Mohan Rao and (4) Burri Baji, are liable to be set-aside by applying the principle laid down by MSM,J W.P Nos.11475, 10772, 10779, 11477, 12373 AND 12974 of 2020 16 this Court in Paragraph No.14 in Yerramseti Venugopal Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (referred supra).
The petitioner in W.P.No.12373 of 2020 allegedly committed offences punishable under Section 120-B, 147, 148, 307 r/w 149 I.P.C, Sections 3 & 5 of Explosive Substances Act and Section 27(1) of the Arms Act and subsequently vide calendar and judgment in Sessions Case No.460 of 2008 dated 25.07.2019, the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, found him not guilty. But, the offences committed by the petitioner are serious in nature. However, the contention of the respondents/police is identical to the contention urged in the earlier writ petitions. Therefore, in the absence of any plausible material placed before this Court and in that regard, it is incomprehensive as to how the police came to know that the petitioner committed offence when no victim approached the police for lodging the report. Hence, rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner viz., Paturi Brahmaiah, is liable to be set-aside by applying the principle laid down by this Court in Paragraph No.14 in Yerramseti Venugopal Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (referred supra).
Coming to W.P.No.12974 of 2020, the petitioners allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 353, 341, 506 r/w 34 I.P.C which are subject matter of C.C.No.501 of 2014 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadepalligudem. The basis for opening of rowdy sheet against the petitioners is pendency of above crime. A copy of the order is not placed on record, except placing copy of charge sheet filed before the Magistrate for various offences referred supra.
MSM,J W.P Nos.11475, 10772, 10779, 11477, 12373 AND 12974 of 2020 17 Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, on the ground of commission of above offences, filing of charge sheet, pendency of calendar case before the Magistrate concerned, it is not sufficient to open a rowdy sheet.
A bare look at the conditions for opening of a rowdy sheet under Andhra Pradesh Police Manual Standing Order 601 referred above, none of the clauses covered these offences to open a rowdy sheet. Though the petitioners raised several other contentions, they are not necessary to be adjudicated, as the offences allegedly committed by these petitioners do not attract any of the clauses of Andhra Pradesh Police Manual Standing Order 601 referred above to open a rowdy sheet against these petitioners, strictly adhering to Standing Order 601. On this ground alone, opening rowdy sheet against the petitioners in W.P.No.12974 of 2020 viz., (1) Mailavarapu Surendra Kumar and (2) Mailavarapu Lalaiah is liable to be set- aside.
In the result, writ petitions are allowed, directing the respondents/police to close the rowdy sheet(s) against the petitioners in the above writ petitions. No costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date:26.08.2020 sp