Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Nallagorla Rama Rao , vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 2 November, 2021

Author: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy

Bench: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy

                                 1
                                                               CMR, J.
                                                    W.P.No.8590 of 2021




 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

                   Writ Petition No.8590 of 2021

ORDER:

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking mandamus declaring the action of respondents 2 to 4 in not closing the rowdy sheet bearing No.841 opened against the petitioner even though no crimes are pending against him at present, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Standing Order No.742 of the A.P. Police Standing Orders, and consequently, to direct respondents 2 to 4 to close the rowdy sheet bearing No.841 opened against the petitioner.

2) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondents 1 to 4.

3) Factual matrix of the writ petition may be stated as follows:

(a) The petitioner claims to be the resident of Mangalagiri, Guntur District. Earlier a case in Crime No.289 of 2013 of Mangalagiri Rural Police Station, was registered against him for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 147, 148 and 302 r/w.149 of IPC. He is A-2 in the said crime. After full-

fledged trial that was conducted in Sessions Case No.549 of 2015 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, against the petitioner and other accused, he was acquitted of all the said charges on 04.01.2018. A case in Crime No.161 of 2012 of Mangalagiri Police Station, for the offence punishable under 2 CMR, J.

Sections 326 r/w.34 of IPC was also registered against him along with other accused. In the trial conducted in the said case in C.C.No.477 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, the petitioner was convicted along with other accused and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Appeal preferred thereagainst the said judgment of conviction by the petitioner was allowed setting aside the said judgement of conviction of the trial Court for the offence punishable under Sections 326 r/w.34 of IPC. However, he was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 324 r/w.34 of IPC and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/- for the said offence. In another case registered against him in Crime No.268 of 2011, the matter was compromised in the Lok Adalat and the petitioner was acquitted of the said offence under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C.

(b) On account of the pendency of the aforesaid cases against him, the police opened rowdy sheet bearing No.841 against the petitioner in the year 2013. However, it is stated that even after the petitioner was acquitted in the murder case and even after imposing only fine in other two cases, that the said rowdy sheet is still continued contrary to the Police Standing Orders. Therefore, the petitioner sought for declaration as stated above that the action of the respondent police officials in not closing the said rowdy sheet is illegal and 3 CMR, J.

arbitrary and consequently, sought direction to the police officials to close the said rowdy sheet.

4. The 2nd respondent Sub-Divisional Police Officer, North Sub-Division, Guntur Urban District, filed counter-affidavit on behalf of all the respondents. It is pleaded that even though the petitioner was acquitted in a case registered against him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, but he was found guilty in other two cases registered against him for the offences punishable under Sections 324 r/w.34 of IPC and he was also sentenced to pay fine in the said two cases. It is further pleaded that as per Standing Order 601 of the A.P. Police Standing Orders, rowdy sheet can be opened against the (1) 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; (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. Town Nuisances Act; (4) persons who habitually tease women and girls and pass indecent remarks including offences under Sections 354-A, 354-B, 354-C and 354-D of IPC; (5) persons who have been charge-sheeted for the offence of rape punishable under Section 376 of IPC; and (6) persons who have been charge-sheeted for the offences under the POCSO Act, 2012 and acid attacks punishable under Sections 326-A 4 CMR, J.

and 326-B of IPC. It is further pleaded that even against persons who indulge in intimidating 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, also rowdy sheet can be opened. It is finally pleaded that under Standing Order No.602(2) of A.P. Police Standing Orders, merely because a person is not shown as accused in the previous five years after the last case in which he was involved, ended in acquittal, nothing precludes to continue the rowdy sheet opened against him if it is the considered view of the police that his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of the 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.

5. Therefore, it is pleaded that as the petitioner earlier involved in several cases, due to fear the victims are not coming forward to give complaint against him and as such, in view of the conduct of the petitioner as there is every likelihood of the petitioner indulging in acts of disturbing public peace and tranquillity that the rowdy sheet that was opened against him is being continued despite the fact that he was acquitted in murder case and only fine was imposed in other two cases. So, it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

CMR, J.

6. The fact that in a case registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC that he was acquitted after full-fledged trial is not disputed before this Court. Similarly, in other two cases that only fine was imposed against him for the offence punishable under Sections 324 r/w.34 of IPC is also not disputed. The rowdy sheet was opened against the petitioner when the aforesaid three cases were pending against him in the year 2013. However, even after the petitioner was acquitted in the murder case and other two cases were disposed of by imposing fine, the said rowdy sheet is being still continued without closing the same only on the ground that there is likelihood of the petitioner being indulged in acts of disturbing public peace and tranquillity. However, no material is produced before this Court to substantiate the said version of the respondent police officials that the petitioner has been indulging in any such acts of disturbing the public peace or tranquillity. Mere bald assertion sans without any material to substantiate the fact that the petitioner has been in fact indulging in any such acts of disturbing public peace or tranquillity by itself is not sufficient to justify continuance of the rowdy sheet that was opened against him at present.

7. This Court while dealing with Standing Order No.602 of the A.P. Police Standing Orders in W.P.No.24672 of 2020, at para.No.7 of the order, dated 16.03.2021, held as follows: 6

CMR, J.

"......So, three grounds are contemplated to continue the rowdy sheet under Standing Order 602(2) of the A.P. Police Standing Orders viz., (i) that the concerned authority must have material before him that the activities of the petitioner are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order; (ii) his conduct must be of such a nature which affecting the peace and tranquillity in the area; and

(iii) that the victims are not coming forward to give any complaint against him on account of threat from him. Existence of any one of these three grounds is sine qua non for extending the period of rowdy sheet from time to time even though when the petitioner is not figured as an accused in any pending case.....".

Further held as follows:

"...As can be seen from the material available on record, the respondent police officials did not produce any order passed extending the period of rowdy sheet based on the aforesaid three grounds contemplated under Standing Order 602(2) of the A.P. Police Standing Orders. Mere making a bald assertion in the counter-affidavit sans producing any material to substantiate the said version cannot be countenanced to justify extension of the rowdy sheet against the petitioner. No material whatsoever is produced before this Court to substantiate the version of the respondents that the petitioner has involved in any activity which is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or which may affect the peace and tranquillity in the area....."

Therefore, the Court has set aside the rowdy sheet that was opened against the petitioners therein.

8. The aforesaid analogy squarely applies to the present facts of the case also. In this case also, as already observed supra, the respondent police officials did not produce any material to justify extension of rowdy sheet on the ground that the petitioner has been indulging in any activity which is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or which may affect the public peace and tranquillity in the area. 7

CMR, J.

9. Therefore, there is absolutely no justification in continuing the rowdy sheet when no case is pending against the petitioner at present by invoking Standing Order No.602(2) of the A.P. Police Standing Orders. No valid grounds are also emanating from record to justify continuance of rowdy sheet under Standing Order No.601 of the A.P. Police Standing Orders. The petitioner is not falling within the purview of any of the grounds enumerated therein.

10. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed declaring that the action of the respondent police officials in continuing the rowdy sheet against the petitioner as illegal. Consequently, the respondent police officials are hereby directed to close the said rowdy sheet that was opened against the petitioner. No costs.

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

________________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date:02.11.2021.

cs