Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Md. Salman Ahmed vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 4 May, 2022
Author: U.Durga Prasad Rao
Bench: U.Durga Prasad Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
Writ Petition No.5980 of 2022
ORDER:
The petitioner seeks a mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 5 & 6 in opening the suspect sheet in C.No.178/ACP- WZ/2012 against the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the A.P. Police Standing Order 600(1) and contrary to the principles of natural justice and for a consequential direction to the respondents 5 & 6 to close the aforesaid suspect sheet.
2. The petitioner's case, succinctly, is thus:
(a) The petitioner is the resident of Vijayawada and is eking out his livelihood by doing car driving work. He has one wife and four female children and he is law abiding citizen. Earlier one crime No.682/2012 was registered against him by II Town Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 427, 506 r/w 34 IPC, wherein the petitioner was shown as A1 and after full-fledged trial the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada acquitted him.
(b) Thereafter the petitioner came to know that on the direction of 5th respondent, the Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station opened suspect sheet against the petitioner and insisted the petitioner to report before him on every day. The petitioner never involved in any offence involving breach of piece, disturbance to public orders and security etc. and no crime was registered against him.2
(c) The petitioner brought to the notice of the respondents on several occasions that he was never involved in any other offence and hence, suspect sheet may be removed as the continuation of rowdy sheet against him is contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Police Standing Order 600(1).
3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home filed counter opposing the writ petition and contended thus:
(a) In the year 2008, on account of inter religion marriage between Shabana Begum, native of Panja Centre, Wynchipeta, Vijayawada and Somu Rajesh of Relli community of the same locality, series of violent incidents have taken place and tension was prevailing at Wynchipeta Area resulting in registration of following cases:
(a) Crime No.286/2008 u/s. 3 (x) of SC/ST (POA) Act and u/s 147, 148, 307, 324, 323, 506 r/w 149 IPC. On 1.8.2008 the Muslim people attacked the Relli people at Wynchipeta area. To that effect, on the report given by the complainant Madugula Lakshmana Rao, the case was registered and investigated into.
(b) Crime No.287/2008 u/s 147, 148, 307, 324, 323, 506 r/w 149 IPC. On 5.8.2008 some unknown accused made an attack on the Relli people at Wynchipeta area. On the report given by Eenadu Reporter Ramakrishna, the case was registered and investigated into.
(c) Crime No.288/2008 u/s 147, 148, 307, 324, 323, 506 r/w 149 IPC. On the same day i.e., on 5.8.2008 on the report given by Sk. Noor Basha of Wynchipeta, Vijayawada the case was registered against Singampalli Durga and others and investigated into.3
All the above cases were charge sheeted and in consequences of earlier issues an incident of crime took place and the petitioner is the accused in the said crime as detailed under:
(a) Crime No.657/2012 u/s 341, 323, 427, 506 r/w 34 IPC of II Town PS, Vijayawada. This case was registered based on the report given by the complainant Somi Shabana Begam, w/o Rajesh, R/o Irasappa Temple Street, Wynchipeta, Vijayawada.
(b) The petitioner / A1 and A2 to A6 have beat LW-2 and threatened him of dire consequences and also damaged his Auto.
(b) It is submitted that the petitioner and other accused have committed the said offence five years after the main incident keeping in mind about the past incidents. In those circumstances, the Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station, Vijayawada City submitted a proposal for opening Suspect Sheet against the petitioner herein and then in view of the involvement of the petitioner in the above criminal case and to curtail his unlawful activities and accordingly, the 5 th respondent in exercise of the powers conferred under Order No.600(1) of APPM Vol-I, accorded permission to open the suspect sheet against the petitioner in C.No.178/ACP-WZ/2012 dated 03.09.2012.
(c) It is further submitted that on 12.3.2018 the Inspector of Police, II Town PS, Vijayawada addressed a letter to 5 th respondent to transfer the Suspect Sheet opened against the petitioner to I Town PS, Vijayawada City / respondent No.6 on the point of jurisdiction as the petitioner has shifted his place of residence to the limits of I Town PS, Vijayawada. Accordingly, as per the orders of 5 th respondent, the suspect sheet of the petitioner was transferred from II Town PS to I 4 Town PS, Vijayawada / 6th respondent on 12.03.2018 and the same is being continued till date.
(d) As per the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual Order No.600, the following persons may be classified as suspects and Suspect sheets may be opened for them under the orders of the SP/DCP and ACP/SDPO.
1) Persons convicted under any section of involved penal code who are considered likely to commit crime again and
2) Persons not convicted but believed to be addicted to crime
3) Members criminal gangs or Organizing Criminal syndicates who have been charge sheeted.
4) Communal caste and activities who are known to instigate, Organize violence or spark of communal or caste.
5) Smugglers, holders of black markets and professional land grabbers chased under Money laundering Act.
6) Assault of Public servant.
7) Attempt to Murder (307 IPC), Murder (302 IPC)
8) Chain Snatching
9) Extended under City Police Act / Other Acts like Anti-
Social Hazardous activities (Pre) Act.
10) Rape Cases U/s 376 IPC, 376 A, B, C, D, E.
11) Cases of POCSO.
12) Persons charged under Un-lawful Activities Prevention Act.
(e) Further, the Police Standing Order 602(2) clearly says "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 they consider that his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order or one affecting peace and tranquility 5 in the area or the victims are not coming forward to give complaint against him on account of threat from him".
(f) In view of the public interest and mainly to safeguard the interests of the residents of I Town Police Station, Vijayawada City limits where the petitioner is residing, the Suspect Sheet is being continued. Unless and until a close watch is being maintained against the unlawful activities of the petitioner herein, there is every chance that he may repeat the offences and the petitioner is not entitled to grant any relief. The other allegations made in the writ petition are false and hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.
4. The petitioner filed rejoinder affidavit denying the counter averments and contended thus:
(a) It is stated that in the year 2017 the staff of respondents 5 & 6 called the petitioner to the police station and beat him with the stick on fingers for the reason that he was wearing a T-shirt. Further, the staff of the respondents 5 & 6 are making domiciliary visits in the night times and threatening him to come to the police station. Even on Friday also when the petitioner entered in Namaz or when he used to visit grave yard of his mother, the staff of the respondents 5 & 6 are following him and threatening him.
5. Heard Sri Mohammad Nayab Rasool, learned counsel for petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home representing the respondents.
6
6. Severely fulminating the continuation of rowdy sheet even after the petitioner was acquitted in Cr. No.682/2012, learned counsel for petitioner argued that the said continuation is violative of the principles of natural justice and all canons of law including the A.P. Police Standing Order 600(1).
7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home would submit that the movements of the petitioner are required to be watched in the interest of the public and therefore, the rowdy sheet is being continued.
8. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in the writ petition to allow?
9. Point: As can be seen, admittedly the petitioner was arrayed as A1 in C.C.No.682/2012 (Cr.No.657/2012 on the file of II Town PS, Vijayawada for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 427, 506 r/w 34 IPC) and after full-fledged trial in C.C.No.682/2012, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada vide judgment dated 06.02.2014 has acquitted all the accused including the petitioner. No material is placed before this Court to show that subsequently, the petitioner was involved in any criminal case or that any complaint was lodged by members of the public or made any oral complaint that the acts and activities of the petitioner caused threat to them. In these circumstances, in the considered view of this Court, the respondents 5 7 & 6 need to reconsider as to whether the continuation of the suspect sheet is justifiable or not.
10. Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to submit application to the respondents 3 to 5 making a request to close the suspect sheet in C.No.178/ACP-WZ/2012 opened against him in the year 2012 within four (4) weeks from the date of this order, in which case, the aforesaid respondent authorities shall consider the said application and conduct due enquiry by affording personal hearing to the petitioner, if necessary, and pass an appropriate order in accordance with governing law and Rules within three (3) weeks from the date of submission of the application. No costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J 04.05.2022 MVA