Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Ari Gopi vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 2 May, 2025
APHC010136772025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3330]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY
FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.
N 7094/2025
BETWEEN:
Ari Gopi ...Petitioner
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondent(s)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME
The Court made the following:
2
ORDER:
The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief:
...pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in opening a Rowdy sheet on the file of the 5th Respondent police station as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and violative of AP Standing orders consequently to set aside the same and pass such other order or orders...
2. The present writ petition is filed to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in opening a Rowdy sheet on the file of the 5th Respondent police station as illegal arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and violative of AP Standing orders consequently to set aside the same and to pass appropriate relief.
3. It is the torment of the writ petitioner that he was not convicted in any criminal cases and the 3 rd respondent Sub- Divisional Officer, Nellore has opened a Rowdy sheet vide 192 of 3 2022 and he was not involved in any criminal cases except in one case in Crime No. 221 of 2021 for the offence punishable under Sections 307 r/w 34 IPC and he was arrayed as 2nd accused in the charge sheet and he was acquitted by the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Nellore, in S.C. No. 39 of 2021 vide judgment dated 14.09.2022. Under no circumstances it warranted to open a rowdy sheet against one terming as habitual offender and the respondents have no power, authority or jurisdiction in opening and continuing the rowdy sheet.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed asserting that petitioner was arrayed as accuse No.2 in S.C. No. 39 of 2021 and he was acquitted in S.C. No. 39 of 2021 vide judgment dated 14.09.2022 by the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge Nellore in charge sheet filed in Cr. No. 222 of 2021 for the offence punishable under Section 307, r/w 34 IPC. Further it is stated that the petitioner herein has scant respect towards the law and in order to curb and curtail the unlawful activities of the petitioner herein the vicinity of the Chillakallu Police has opened suspect sheet against the petitioner after obtaining permission from Sub- Divisional Police Officer, order dated 18.12.2020. It is further stated that under the Police Standing Order No.601, the following 4 persons may be classified as rowdies and rowdy sheet may be opened for them under the presence of the SP/DCP and ACP/SDPO.
1. Persons, who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences involving a breach of the peace, disturbances to public order and security.
2. Persons bound over under Sections 106, 107, 108(1) 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 AP Town Nuisances Act.
4. Persons who habitually tease women and girls and pass indecent remarks including offences under Sections 354-A, B, C and 354-D IPC.
5. Persons who have been charge sheeted under the offence of Rape (376, 376-A, B, C, D and E IPC).
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 one police station area but found frequenting the other police stations area, can be maintained at all such police stations.
5
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‟.
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 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 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."
5. It is further asserted that as per standing order 602(2), that it should not preclude the SP/DCP/CP to continue the history 6 sheet, if SP/DCP/CP is of the considered view that the activities of the accused is or are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or one affecting peace and tranquility in the area and the victims are not able to come forward to give a complaint on account of threat from accused.
6. After formation of the State of Andhra Pradesh, in 1956, Madras District Police Act was adopted by Andhra Adaptation Order, 1953 and accordingly, A.P. (Andhra Area) District Police Act, 1959 came into force along with the Police Standing Orders that were issued till 1954.
7. It is stated in the counter affidavit that except the above mentioned cases, no other case was registered or pending against the petitioner herein on the file of Chillakallu Police Station, NTR District. It is further stated that as per APPM Standing Order No.600, the following persons may be classified as rowdies and rowdy sheets may be opened for them under the orders of the SP/DCP and ACP/SDPO.
8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Learned Assistant Government Pleader for State. Perused the record. 7
9. In Puttagunta Pasi @ Penta Pasi v. Commissioner of Police1, a Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh had an occasion to consider whether opening of a rowdy sheet under PSO 742 is proper and legal. Analysing cases decided by erstwhile High Court, the Division Bench held that opening of the rowdy sheets in a routine manner against persons who are not habitual offenders is not permissible and went on to lay down that:
"...............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 acts so committed by a person will have a tendency to disturb public peace and tranquility." As per the A.P. Police Manual Standing Order No.602(2), even though a suspect/rowdy having history sheet is not figuring as an accused in the previous 5 years after the last case in which he was involved, still the authorities can continue his history sheet if in their considered view, his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or one effecting peace and tranquility in the area or the victims are not coming 1 [1998 (3) ALT 55] 8 forward to give complaint against him on account of threat from him.
10. The legal validity of Chapter 37 of the A.P. Police Manual, which serves as the foundation for the creation of rowdy-sheets, suspect-sheets, and history-sheets, has been brought into question and challenged in W.P.No.3568 of 2022 and related cases. In a common order dated 15.07.2022, this Court addressed the issue extensively, taking into account relevant laws and previous judgments by the Supreme Court, particularly the landmark judgment in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India2. This Court concluded that Chapter-37 of the A.P. Police Manual or A.P. Police Standing Orders on the basis of which the rowdy- sheets/suspect-sheets/history-sheets are being opened and surveillance is being kept on the individuals on the basis of the said rowdy-sheets/suspect-sheets/history-sheets, as deemed void.
11. At para 45 of the said common order, it is held as follows:
"45) Hence, the Writ Petition No.3568 of 2022 is allowed declaring the Standing Orders of A.P. Police Manual / A.P. Police Standing Orders to the extent of opening/ continuation of Rowdy Sheet, Suspect Sheet, History Sheet 2 (2017) 10 SCC 1 9 etc., and on that basis the surveillance of the individual (in terms of Chapter 37 of the above said Standing Orders) as void. All the other Writ Petitions are also allowed. All the rowdy sheets opened in this batch of Writ Petitions are directed to be closed immediately. The police cannot open or continue a rowdy sheet or collect data pertaining to a person without the sanction of "law". Collection of personal data and its usage for prevention of crimes also can only be in accordance with a "law" which crosses the thresholds mentioned in the Constitution of India and the various judgments including K.S.Puttaswamy case (referred supra) since 'privacy' is now a Fundamental Right as per Part-III of the Constitution of India. It is reiterated that the police cannot (under the existing orders) indulge in night visits;
domiciliary visits to the houses of a suspect or accused. They cannot take or demand the photographs, fingerprints etc., except under the procedure established by a 'law' and if the conditions laid down are satisfied. Accused or suspects cannot be summoned or called to the Police Station or anywhere else either during festivals/ elections/weekends etc. They cannot be made to wait at the Police Stations for any reason or seek permission to leave the local jurisdiction."
12. Referring the principles enunciated in the above judgments and for the conclusions reached by this Court in the aforesaid judgment and in the light of these facts, keeping the suspect sheet / rowdy-sheets / history-sheets against the petitioner, which 10 is impugned in this writ petition, is illegal and unconstitutional and it would constitute an abuse of judicial process.
13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned Rowdy Sheet opened against the petitioner herein is hereby quashed. There shall be no orders as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 02.05.2025 Harin 11 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO 27 W.P.No. 7094 OF 2025 Date: 02.05.2025 Harin