Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
V. Eswarudu Siva vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 2 January, 2020
Author: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION No. 17086 OF 2019
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare that the action of the respondents in opening Rowdy Sheet No.36 of 2019 on the file of Annavaram Police Station, Sankhavaram Mandal, East Godavari District as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India and issue a consequential direction, setting aside Rowdy Sheet No.36 of 2019 on the file of Annavaram Police Station, Sankhavaram Mandal, East Godavari District.
It is alleged that, that the petitioner is in respectable position, party worker of Telugu Desam Party and that the ruling party has come into power three months ago, at the instance of the local leaders of the ruling party, started tirade against the petitioner to implicate the petitioner in false and vexatious cases to tarnish his image in public. In this pursuit, the fourth respondent/Sub- Inspector of Police, at the behest of the ruling party, registered three false complaints in Crime Nos.165 of 2019, 209 of 2019 and 211 of 2019, for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 341, 324, 506 r/w 149 I.P.C, Sections 143, 341, 186, 353 r/w 149 I.P.C and Sections 324, 506 r/w 34 I.P.C respectively.
While the mater stood thus, on 20.10.2019, the staff attached to the fourth respondent/Sub-Inspector of Police sent a message to the petitioner asking him to appear before the police station. Accordingly, the petitioner went to the police station where he was informed that a rowdy sheet against this petitioner bearing Rowdy MSM,J 2 WP No.17086 of 2019 Sheet No.36 of 2019 was opened and they also obtained the statement of this petitioner on the same day. On coming to know about opening of Rowdy Sheet against the petitioner, he questioned the fourth respondent as to why the Rowdy Sheet was opened against him, basing on three false complaints registered against him and more so, the offences mentioned in those complaints would not warrant the police to open Rowdy Sheet.
It is alleged that, on perusal of the complaint, it is clear that none of the cases registered against him would not satisfy the ingredients of Police Standing Order No.601 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual. The Crimes which were registered against this petitioner are all politically motivated and out of personal vendetta. The Police Standing Order No.601 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual Standing Orders is obviously a provision which is penal in nature and as such, any deviation from strict adherence to the said provision would undoubtedly result in invasion and transgression of fundamental rights guaranteed under Constitution of India. It is also contended that opening of Rowdy Sheet No.36 of 2019 on the file of Annavaram Police Station, Sankhavaram Mandal, East Godavari District and its continuation would undermine the reputation of this petitioner in the eyes of public and not only causes substantial loss to the reputation in terms of money, but also mental agony to this petitioner indirectly. Therefore, the petitioner sought the relief as stated above.
The third respondent/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Peddapuram filed counter affidavit, denying material allegations, inter alia, contending that the petitioner has scant respect towards the law MSM,J 3 WP No.17086 of 2019 and he has involved in three crimes for different offences and they are as follows:
1. Crime No.165 of 2019 under Sections 120-B, 341, 324, 506 r/w 34 I.P.C and Section 66-A of Information and Technology Act of Annavaram Police Station.
(pending trial vide C.C.No.955/2019)
2. Crime No. 209 of 2019 under Sections 120-B, 143, 341, 186, 353 r/w 149 I.P.C of Annavaram Police Station.
(investigation is under progress)
3. Crime No. 211 of 2019 under Sections 324, 506 r/w 34 I.P.C (pending trial vide C.C.No.980/2019) In view of the involvement of the petitioner in the above criminal cases, to curb and curtail his unlawful activities with iron hand, the respondent has issued proceedings vide C.No.8/ROWDY/SDPO/2019 (Rowdy Sheet No.36/2019) dated 28.09.2019 to open a rowdy sheet against the petitioner herein and the same is being continued and renewed from time to time on the rolls of fourth respondent/Annavaram Police Station. It is further contended that this petitioner is habituated to cause breach of peace and tranquility in the limits of Annavaram Police Station and the activities of the petitioner/accused are hazardous to the society and a close watch is being maintained against the movements of this petitioner.
A rowdy sheet may be opened in accordance with Standing Order No.601 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual Standing Orders and Standing Order No.601 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual Standing Orders reads as follows:
MSM,J 4 WP No.17086 of 2019 "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.
A. 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.
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 A.P. Towns Nuisances Act.
D. Persons who habitually tease woman and girls and pass indecent remarks.
E. Persons who have been charge sheeted under the offence of Rape.
F. Persons who have been charged sheeted under the offences of POCSO Act, 2012 and Acid Attacks.
G. Rowdy Sheets for the rowdies residing in one Police Station area but found frequenting the other Police Stations area, can be maintained at all such Police Stations.
H. 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". I. Persons who incite and instigate communal/caste or political riots.
J. 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.
K. 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. L. Persons on whom charge sheets filed under the offence of murder and attempt to murder.
M. Persons on whom charge sheets filed under the offence of chain snatching.
N. Persons who are convicted for offences under the Representatives of the Peoples Act for rigging and carrying away ballot papers, Boxes and other polling material." According to Standing Order No.602(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual Standing Orders, merely because a suspect/rowdy, having a history sheet, is not figuring as accused in the previous five MSM,J 5 WP No.17086 of 2019 years after the last case in which he was involved, it should not preclude the SD/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 the public order or one affecting peace and tranquility in the area or the victims are not coming forward to give complaint against him on account of threat from him.
Since the petitioner is facing trial and investigation in the above three cases, the rowdy sheet is being continued to have a close watch on the movements of this petitioner and to see that he shall not repeat commission of similar offences or any other offences in the interest of public, mainly to safeguard the interest of the residents, where the petitioner is residing. Therefore, there is no illegality in opening of Rowdy Sheet and its continuation and prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Challa Dhanamjaya would contend that none of the crimes registered against this petitioner would enable the third respondent to pass an order to open a Rowdy Sheet strictly adhering to Standing Order No.601 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual Standing Orders. Therefore, opening of Rowdy Sheet, its continuation and keeping a close watch on the petitioner by restricting the movements of this petitioner would result in enormous loss of reputation in the eye of public and it would result in financial loss of this petitioner on account of restrictions on the movements of this petitioner and it is in utter violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Apart from that, three crimes were registered at the instance of support of the local leader of political party in power, due to change MSM,J 6 WP No.17086 of 2019 of the government, since the petitioner is a staunch supporter of the opposition party which was earlier in power. Thus, registration of crimes is only due to political motivation, but not otherwise. On this ground also, the Rowdy Sheet opened against this petitioner is liable to be closed and it should be declared as illegal and arbitrary.
During arguments, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home specifically contended that, Crime No.165 of 2019 would fall within the guidelines prescribed under Standing Order No.601 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual and opening of Rowdy Sheet is in accordance with the of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual and that the third respondent did not transgress his limits while issuing direction to the fourth respondent to open a Rowdy Sheet against this petitioner and that too, it is only to keep a watch on the movements of this petitioner to maintain law and order in the village, as the petitioner harassing the neighbours of the village and thereby, there is no justification in interference with the right of this petitioner, but not otherwise and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
Opening of rowdy sheet against this petitioner on account of registration of three crimes is sufficient to open a rowdy sheet, keeping in view Standing Order No.601 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual Standing Orders. The Court has to insist the police to strict adherence of the provisions of Standing Order No.601 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual, as such, opening of Rowdy Sheet or suspect sheet would mar the reputation in the eye of public and it will cause not only loss to the personal image or esteem in the public, but also financial loss to this petitioner and if, for any reason, opening of rowdy sheet against this petitioner is contrary to Standing Order No.601 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual Standing Orders, the MSM,J 7 WP No.17086 of 2019 Court can declare such action of the police/Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 as illegal and arbitrary.
The main stress of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home is of Crime No.165 of 2019, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 341, 324, 506 r/w 34 I.P.C and Section 66-A of Information and Technology Act of Annavaram Police Station, in which investigation is completed, filed charge sheet before the Magistrate, who in-turn took cognizance of the offence and registered the same as C.C.No.955 of 2019 pending for trail before the jurisdictional Magistrate.
None of the offences which are the subject mater of C.C.No.955 of 2019 (Crime No.165 of 2019) on the file of jurisdictional Magistrate do not fall within the ambit of clauses contained in Standing Order No.601 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual.
Coming to the other crime i.e. Crime No.209 of 2019 registered for the offences under Sections 120-B, 143, 341, 186, 353 r/w 149 I.P.C of Annavaram Police Station, the investigation is in progress and no charge sheet is filed as per the allegations made in Paragraph No.3 of the counter affidavit. But, filing of charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 353 I.P.C i.e. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, which is punishable with imprisonment for more than two years would fall under Clause 11 of Standing Order No.601 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual. But, the requirement for opening of Rowdy Sheet even on the basis of commission of offence or assault of a public servant i.e. Section 353 I.P.C is filing of charge sheet. In the present case, charge sheet is not filed and investigation is in progress, as per the allegations made in Paragraph No.3 of the counter affidavit. Hence, MSM,J 8 WP No.17086 of 2019 the offences allegedly committed by this petitioner in Crime No.209 of 2019 where investigation is not completed and no charge sheet is filed against this petitioner, is not a ground to open a Rowdy Sheet, since filing of charge sheet for the offences of assault of a public servant is a pre-requisite. Hence, opening of rowdy sheet against this petitioner on this ground alone is a serious illegality committed by the police/Respondent Nos. 3 & 4.
The third crime allegedly registered against this petitioner in Crime No.211 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 506 r/w 34 I.P.C, which is the subject matter of C.C.No.980 of 2019 pending for trail. The commission of offences punishable under Sections 324 and 506 I.P.C also do not fall within Standing Order No.601 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual. Therefore, opening of rowdy sheet on the basis of commission of three crimes which are the subject matter of C.C.No.955 of 2019 and C.C.No.980 of 2019 on the file of Judicial first Class Magistrate at Tuni is not a ground to open a rowdy sheet and whereas, in Crime No.209 of 2019 charge sheet is not filed as the investigation is in the mid-way and thereby, failed to satisfy the requirement under Clause 11 of Standing Order No.601 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual, since filing of a charge sheet for assault of public servant is a pre- requisite to open rowdy sheet.
As seen from the material available on record, the third respondent obviously for different reasons issued proceedings for opening of rowdy sheet by the fourth respondent and the fourth respondent in obedience of the directions of the third respondent opened Rowdy Sheet No.36 of 2019 on the file of Annavaram Police Station, Sankhavaram Mandal, East Godavari District, in utter MSM,J 9 WP No.17086 of 2019 disregard to Standing Order No.601 of of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual. Such opening of rowdy sheet and keeping the movements of this petitioner under watch would straight-away infringe the protection of life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Article 21 of the Constitution of India which is one of the luminary provisions in the Constitution and is a part of the scheme for fundamental rights occupies a place of pride in the Constitution. The article mandates that no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. This sacred and cherished right i.e. personal liberty has an important role to play in the life of every citizen. Life or personal liberty includes a right to live with human dignity. There is an inbuilt guarantee against torture or assault by the State and its functionaries. The word 'except according to procedure established by law' suggest that Article 21 does not apply where a person is detained by a private individual and not by or under authority of the State; no fundamental right is infringed when the detention complained of is by a private individual. But, when the State wanted to restrict the movements of a citizen of India illegally, it amounts to infringement of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. personal liberty.
Here, Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 illegally restricted the movements of this petitioner calling him to the police station on account of opening of Rowdy Sheet No.36 of 2019 on the file of Annavaram Police Station, Sankhavaram Mandal, East Godavari District, on the flimsy ground of commission of three crimes referred supra, though they do not form the basis for opening of rowdy sheet, strictly in MSM,J 10 WP No.17086 of 2019 terms of Standing Order No.601 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual. When a rowdy sheet is opened contrary to Standing Order No.601 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual, such opening of rowdy sheet and keeping watch on the movements of this petitioner or restricting the movements in the name of opening of rowdy sheet directly amounts to violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
On account of opening of rowdy sheet, calling the petitioner to police station frequently, keeping watch on his movements by restricting his movements in the guise of maintaining law and order, certainly creates a dent on the reputation of a citizen i.e. the petitioner herein. Right to reputation is a facet of right to life of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In case, any authority, in the discharge of its duties fastened upon it under the law, traverses into the realm of personal reputation adversely affecting him, it must provide a chance to him to have his say in the matter. In such circumstances right of an individual to have a safeguard of the principles of natural justice before being adversely affecting his reputation and violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.
Coming to the facts of the present case, when the petitioner's reputation is in the eye of public is lowered on account of opening of rowdy sheet illegally, the petitioner may take appropriate action against the person who infringed his reputation and can claim compensation against the unlawful acts of the officers of the State and to repair the damage done to the citizen by its officials for violating their indefeasible right of personal liberty without any authority of law in an absolutely highhanded manner, as held by the MSM,J 11 WP No.17086 of 2019 Supreme Court in Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana1 where the State was directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the detenue for illegally confining for three days. In T.C. Pathak v. State of U.P2, when a person is illegally arrested, prosecuted and sentenced, the Supreme Court set-aside sentence, ordered Government to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to victim, which might be recovered from erring police officers and a show cause notice was also issued.
In the present case also, for opening of rowdy sheet against this petitioner without any basis, more particularly, when no charge sheet is filed for the offence punishable under Section 353 I.P.C i.e. assault of public servant is one of the ground to lay claim against the government for opening of rowdy sheet without any basis.
In view of my foregoing discussion, the very opening of rowdy sheet is illegal and contrary to Standing Order No.601 of A.P. Police Manual and hence, Rowdy Sheet No.36 of 2019 on the file of Annavaram Police Station, Sankhavaram Mandal, East Godavari District opened against this petitioner on the basis of three crimes referred supra, is declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, Rowdy Sheet No.36 of 2019 is liable to be set-aside and the fourth respondent/Sub-Inspector of Police, Annavaram is directed to close Rowdy Sheet No.36 of 2019 on the file of Annavaram Police Station, Sankhavaram Mandal, East Godavari District opened against this petitioner henceforth.
1 1995 (3) SCC 757 2 (1995) 6 SCC 357 MSM,J 12 WP No.17086 of 2019 In the result, writ petition is allowed directing the fourth respondent/Sub-Inspector of Police, Annavaram to close Rowdy Sheet No.36 of 2019 on the file of Annavaram Police Station, Sankhavaram Mandal, East Godavari District opened against this petitioner, with costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousands Only).
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any shall stand closed.
__________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date:02.01.2020 sp