Telangana High Court
Syed Irfan Sulaiman vs The State Of Telanganaand 3 Others on 29 June, 2022
Author: A.Abhishek Reddy
Bench: A.Abhishek Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.24421 of 2022
ORDER:
Seeking to set aside the order, dated 16.05.2022, in proceedings No.430/IW/ACP/MC-DIV/2022, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mirchowk Division, Hyderabad, opening a rowdy-sheet against the petitioner, the present writ petition is filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the official respondents, based on the false and frivolous complaints, which mostly pertain to civil disputes, given against the petitioner herein and pending prosecution, have opened the rowdy-sheet. That under the guise of the said opening of the rowdy-sheet, the respondents-police are keeping close surveillance on the movements of the petitioner, harassing him by visiting his house frequently at odd hours, calling him to the police station repeatedly, and thereby interfering with his life, liberty and privacy. Learned counsel has also stated that the Inspector of Police, Mirchowk P.S., has written a letter to the Assistant Commissioner of Police on 16.05.202 listing out five crimes against the petitioner herein, out of which, three cases pertain to the year 2015, one crime pertains to the year 2019 and one Petty Case pertaining to the year 2021. That most of 2 the above mentioned crimes are arising out of business transactions related to land dealings made with various persons and are purely civil in nature. The said crimes were registered based on the false complaints given by those persons only and are pending prosecution. It is further stated that the Assistant Commissioner of Police concerned without any application of mind has passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner without giving any reason for passing the said order. That, admittedly, the crimes which were referred to i.e., Crime Nos.213, 542 and 82 pertain to the year 2015, and one Crime No.144/2019 pertain to the year 2019 and a petty case No.HYD2345PC20103027 pertain to the year 2021. That, lately no crime has been registered against the petitioner herein. Without taking into consideration the fact, the authority has passed the impugned order and opened the rowdy-sheet against the petitioner herein in a mechanical manner. Learned counsel has relied on the judgments of the Division Bench and also the learned Single Judge of this Court in B.Satyanarayana Reddy vs. The Sate of A.P.(DB)1, Puttagunta Pasi alias Penta Pasi vs. Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada2, and the order, dated 06.04.2022 in W.P.No.11485 of 2021 passed by 1 2004 (1) APLJ 379 (HC) 2 (1998) 3 ALT 55 (DB) 3 learned Single Judge of this High Court, in support of his submissions.
Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of the respondents has stated that duly taking into consideration the number of cases pending against the petitioner herein, the official respondents have taken a decision to open the rowdy-sheet. That the petitioner is a habitual offender, keeping in view the public interest, to safeguard the residents of the area where the petitioner is residing and to curb unlawful activities, the rowdy-sheet has been opened against the petitioner. That the respondent Police have followed the procedure contemplated under the Law and opened the rowdy-sheet to maintain the peace and tranquillity in the area. Learned Government Pleader has relied on Police Standing Order 601 to support the decision of the authorities in opening the rowdy-sheet. It is further stated that unless a close monitoring of the petitioner is done, there is every possibility of the petitioner committing more crimes and in order to keep surveillance of the petitioner, the rowdy-sheet had to be necessarily opened. It is further stated that the allegation of the petitioner that he has been harassed and called to the Police Station is totally false and made to prejudice this Court. That, 4 the petitioner was never called to the police station frequently and at odd hours as alleged nor police visited his house, but a vigil has been maintained on the petitioner herein. Learned Government Pleader has stated that the number of cases booked against the petitioner herein show the criminal set of mind of the petitioner and the petitioner is a habitual offender and causing disturbance to the public and security of the public.
Perused the material on record.
A perusal of the letter impugned shows that the Assistant Commissioner of Police has taken a decision to open the rowdy- sheet based on the report of the Inspector of Police, Mirchowk Police Station. It is to be noted that the said report has been sent on 16.05.2022 listing the following crimes against the petitioner herein:
1) Cr.No.213/2015 U/Ss. 3(i)(x) of SC/ST Act and 506 IPC of P.S.Mirchowk
2) Cr.No.542/2015 U/S.506 IPC of P.S.Meerpet
3) Cr.No.82/2015 U/Ss. 420, 406, 384, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sec.3(5)(A) of Telangana Money Lenders Act of P.S.Hussaini Alam 5
4) Cr.No.144/2019 U/S.420, 468, 471, 120b IPC of P.S.Pahadishareerf
5) Petty Case No.HYD2345PC20103027 U/S.70(b) C.P.Act and Sec.323 IPC of Mirchowk P.S. On the very same day, the Assistant Commissioner of Police has taken a decision to open the rowdy-sheet against the petitioner herein. It is necessary to extract the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police concerned:
"No.430/IW/ACP/MC-DVN/2022 Dt.16.05.2022 Sub: Mirchowk Division - Opening of Rowdy Sheet against Sri Syed Irfan Sulaiman S/o.Syed Osman, age: 37 yrs, Occ:Business, R/o.H.No.22-3-540/1, Zehra Nagar, Miralam Mandi, Hyderabad - Rgarding.
Ref:- 1) Cr.No.213/2015 U/Ss. 3(i)(x) of SC/ST Act and 506 IPC of P.S.Mirchowk
2) Cr.No.542/2015 U/S.506 IPC of P.S.Meerpet
3) Cr.No.82/2015 U/Ss. 420, 406, 384, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sec.3(5)(A) of Telangana Money Lenders Act of P.S.Hussaini Alam
4) Cr.No.144/2019 U/S.420, 468, 471, 120b IPC of P.S.Pahadishareerf
5) Petty Case No.HYD2345PC20103027 U/S.70(b) C.P.Act and Sec.323 IPC of Mirchowk P.S. ##### ORDER:
It is necessary to open rowdy sheet to keep surveillance over the activities of above said person to maintain L&O and in the interest of peace, public tranquillity & communal harmony.
Hence permission is hereby accorded to open the Rowdy Sheet against Sri Syed Irfan Sulaiman, S/o.Syed Osman, age: 37 years, Occup: Business, R/o.H.No.22-3- 540/1, Zehra Nagar, Miralam Mandi, Hyderabad, for the involvement in the above crimes, as per Order No.601(A) of TSPM.
Sd/-
Asst. Commissioner of Polie, 6 Mirchowk Division, Hyd."
Admittedly, the report of Inspect of Police shows that out of the five crimes alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, three pertain to the year 2015, one pertains to the year 2019 and the petty case is of the year 2021. As seen from the impugned order, no reasons have been given by the Assistant Commissioner of Police concerned as to why the order to open rowdy sheet had to be passed, more so, when no crimes are alleged to have been committed by the petitioner lately. There is absolutely no reasons given nor the mitigating circumstances for opening of the rowdy sheet against the petitioner. The list of crimes alleged to have been committed by the petitioner are mostly of the year 2015 and one of 2019. When such is the case, there is nothing on record to show what has weighed with the authority to pass the order for opening of the rowdy sheet against the petitioner. A Division Bench of this Court in Puttagunta Pasi's case (referred supra), at para 9, has held as under:-
"From the above, it is clear that rowdy sheets cannot be opened against any individual in a casual and mechanical manner. Dubbing a person as an habitual offender and to open a rowdy sheet is not sufficient. On the other hand, due care and caution shall be taken by the Police before characterising a person as a rowdy. The important element that has to be seen in the acts of an offender is whether the 7 acts so committed by a person will have a tendency to disturb public peace and tranquillity. In Kamma Bapuji's case (1997(6) ALD 583), the learned Single Judge, following the decisions already rendered by the Supreme Court and this Court as cited above, held that opening of a rowdy sheet against the petitioner therein viz., Kamma Bapuji is incorrect."
In B.Satyanarayana Reddy's case (referred supra), a Division Bench of this Court at para 15 held as under:-
"The very expression '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."
Recently, a learned Single Judge of this Court while referring to various decisions in B.Satyanarayana Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (referred supra), Mohd.Sadiq Shareef v. State of Telangana (2019 (1) ALT 283), Dhanji Ram Sharma v. Superintendent of Polie, North District, Delhi Police (AIR 1966 SC 1766), Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar (AIR 1984 SC 1334), Kharak Singh v. The State of U.P. (AIR 1963 SC 1295), Sunkara Satyanarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2000 (1) ALD (Crl.) 117 (AP), Majid Babu v. Government of A.P. (1987 (2) ALT 904), Kamma Bapuji v. Station House Officer, Brahmasamudram (1997 (6) ALD 583), Puttagunta Pasi v. Commissioner of Police (referred 8 supra), Mohammed Quadeer v. Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad (1999 (3) ALD 60), Yerramsetti Venugopal Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2020 (2) ALD (Crl.) 1048 (AP), Sadath Ali v. The Commissioner of Police, Twin Cities, Hyderabad (W.P.No.19194 of 2012, dated 24.08.2015) M.Laxman v. State of Telangana (W.P.No.18364 of 2020, dated 03.12.2020), Kadri Ranadheer Kumar v. Principal Secretary, Home Department, Hyderabad (W.P.No.12845 of 2014, dated 27.09.2019), Mansoor Shah Khan v. The State of Telangana rep.by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Hyderabad (W.P.No.22980 of 2020, dated 01.06.2020) and G.Raman Alias Ramachandran v. The Superintendent of Police, Karur District (2013 Crl.L.J., 2746) has held in W.P. No.11485 of 2021, dated 06.04.2022, at para 27, as under:
"As stated above, as per Standing Order 601 of the A.P. Police Manual, for opening and maintenance of rowdy sheet, a person against whom the same was issued should habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences involving a breach of peace, disturbance to public order and security. Further, as held by the Apex Court in Vijay Narain Singh (AIR 1984 SC 1334) , the expression 'habitually' would mean 'repeatedly' or 'persistently' implying a thread of continuity, stringing together similar repetitive acts, and a single act or omission would not characterize as a 'habitual'. The Apex Court was of the opinion that to qualify as a 'habit', a person must have grown accustomed to leading a life of crime, whereby it would be a force of habit, inherent or latent, in an individual with a criminal instinct, with a criminal disposition of mind, that makes him dangerous to society in general. In Majid Babu (1987 (2) ALT 904) by referring to Standing Order No.742, it was held that two instances of involvement in criminal cases would not make a person a 'habitual offender' and that at least there should be more than 9 two instances present before a person and can be described as a habitual offender. Rowdy sheet could not be opened against an individual in a casual and mechanical manner and due care and caution should be taken by the police before characterizing a person as a rowdy. Figuring as an accused in two cases would not be sufficient to characterize a person as a habitual offender."
It is no doubt true that the maintenance of Rowdy Sheets is governed by Police Standing Order 601 of the A.P. Police Manual, Part-I, Volume II, which reads as under:
"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.
A. 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.
B. Persons bound over under Sections 106, 107, 108(1) (i) and 110(e) and (g) of Cr.P.C. C. 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 AP Towns Nuisances Act.
D. Persons who habitually tease women and
girls and pass indecent remarks.
E. 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.
F. Persons who incite and instigate
communal/caste or political riots.
G. Persons detained under the "AP Prevention of
Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land-Grabbers Act, 1986" for a period of 6 months or more.10
H. Persons who are convicted for offences under the Representatives of the Peoples' Act for rigging and carrying away ballot paper, Boxes and other polling material."
A reading of the above decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court juxtaposed with Police Standing Order 601, no doubt empowers the Police Officer to pass an Order enabling him to open a rowdy sheet against the person who is frequently involving in crimes and thereby pose a threat to life, liberty and freedom of others. But as seen from the facts of this case, out of five crimes alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, three of them pertain to the year 2015, one pertains to the year 2019 and one Petty Case is of the year 2021. There is absolutely no reason as to why the official respondents have sought to open a rowdy sheet when in last three years no crime involving any major offences has been registered against the petitioner herein. Even the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Police concerned shows that the same has been passed in a mechanical manner without giving any reason whatsoever except stating that a rowdy sheet needs to be opened to maintain law and order and in the interest of peace, public tranquillity and communal harmony. There is no discussion as to what are the crimes committed by the petitioner lately which 11 could had warranted the opening of rowdy sheet. Moreover, as seen from the record, all the crimes which are alleged to have been committed by the petitioner pertain to Sections 3 (i) (x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act, 420, 406, 468, 471, 384, 120-B, 323 of 506 IPC, Section 70 (b) of CP Act and Section 3 (5) (A) of Telangana Money Lenders Act, etc. and some of the complaints are between the petitioner and persons who have already filed civil cases against each other. In the absence of any record to show that the petitioner was involved in any crimes off late it cannot be termed that the petitioner is a habitual offender of crimes and therefore the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police opening a rowdy sheet against the petitioner herein cannot be sustained. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has allegedly been involved in any criminal activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of law and order or public order or any activities affecting the peace, tranquillity, or that the victims are not coming forward to give any complaint against the him on account of the threats. Therefore, opening of the rowdy sheet at this juncture by the police against the petitioner is contrary to the well settled principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Hon'ble High Court in the above discussed cases. 12
In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the order, dated 16.05.2022, in proceedings No.430/IW/ACP/MC- DIV/2022, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mirchowk Division, Hyderabad, opening the rowdy sheet against the petitioner herein is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to remove the photo of the petitioner from the rowdy sheet.
The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________ A.ABHISHEK REDDY, J Date :29.06.2022 smr