Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Dasari Yesobu vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 31 December, 2019
Author: M. Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M. Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NO.9307 of 2019
ORDER:
This Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, questioning the action of the respondents in opening and maintaining rowdy sheet against the petitioner pursuant to the orders of the 4th respondent in proceedings in C.No.130/SDPO North Division, Guntur Urban/2015, dated 21-08-2015, and declare the same as illegal and arbitrary.
The petitioner is a law abiding citizen. He is married, blessed with two sons and eking out his livelihood by attending to coolie work. The petitioner along with three others filed O.S.No.404 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur against Dasari Venkata Rao and five others for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 3 therein, their men etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property set out in the plaint. One Sri K.Sesha Rao, Inspector of Police, Pedakakani Police Station was impleaded as 4th defendant in the said suit, and the same was dismissed for default.
The 5th respondent has registered a false case against the petitioner and others in Cr.No.27/2015 under Sections 341, 447, 506, 509 read with 34 IPC. Eventually, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat, Guntur for settlement in Lok Adalat and the same was recorded as compromise between the parties and the petitioner was acquitted under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C by an Award in LAC.No.449/2018, dated 07-03-2018.
2
Similarly, the 5th respondent has also registered another case against the petitioner in Cr.No.268/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 506 read with 34 IPC, and after filing charge sheet, cognizance was taken by the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of offences punishable under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 as C.C.No.104/2015. After full-fledged trial, the Court found the petitioner not guilty and acquitted the petitioner by its judgment dated 05-06-2018.
The 5th respondent appears to have reported to the 4th respondent behind the petitioner citing his involvement in the above cases and falsely alleging that they have threatened the owners of the vacant plots, demanded money, disturbed public peace and tranquility and requested to issue orders to open rowdy sheet against the petitioner. Based on such report, a rowdy sheet, which is the subject matter of the petition, is opened. The main contention of the petitioner before this Court is that when these cases are ended in acquittal, opening of rowdy sheet, and its continuation, does not arise and requested to set aside the same by directing the 4th respondent to delete the name of the petitioner from the rowdy sheet.
The learned Government Pleader for the State filed a counter denying the material allegations inter alia contending that the petitioner involved in four other crimes i.e., Cr.No.463/2015, Cr.No.346/2016, Cr.No.303/2017 and Cr.No.352/2018 for the offences punishable under Section 110 (e) Cr.P.C and based on 3 those crimes, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, North Sub-Division issued proceedings on 21-08-2015 to open a rowdy sheet against this petitioner on the file of Peddakakani Police Station and continued. The 4th respondent also referred to standing orders under Rule 601 of the A.P. Police Manual which enables the police to open rowdy sheet against the persons, who committed those offences enumerated in Rule 601 of the A.P. Police Manual, while referring standing orders under Rule 602 of the A.P. Police Manual. Finally, it is contended that there are no grounds to issue any direction by way of Writ of Mandamus and requested to dismiss the petition.
During hearing, the learned counsel for petitioner reiterated the contentions, while drawing the attention of this Court, specifically stating that the crimes registered against the petitioner are not the basis for opening of rowdy sheet and its continuation in view of the proceedings C.No.130/SDPO/North Division, Guntur Urabn/2015, dated 21-08-2015 and requested to issue a direction to the 4th respondent to delete the name of petitioner from the rowdy sheet.
Whereas the learned Government Pleader for the State supported opening of rowdy sheet against this petitioner and requested to dismiss the petition.
The basis for opening of rowdy sheet against this petitioner is that a crime was registered in Cr.No.27/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 447, 506, 509 read with 34 IPC, which ended in acquittal under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C, due to compromise recorded before the Lok Adalat in LAC No.449/2018, 4 dated 07-03-2018. The other crime was registered against this petitioner in Cr.No.268/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 506 read with 34 IPC is also ended in acquittal after full-fledged trial vide C.C.No.104/2015 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of offences punishable under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. Thus, in both the crimes the petitioner was found not guilty, but opened rowdy sheet against this petitioner vide proceedings C.No.130/SDPO/North Division, Guntur Urabn/2015, dated 21-08-2015, based on the above cases.
Under Standing Order 601 of the A.P. Police Manual several persons were enumerated in Clauses 1 to 14, to open rowdy sheet opened, but the learned Government Pleader for the State specifically contended that the case of the petitioner would fall within Clause 2 i.e., opening of rowdy sheet against the persons bound over under Sections 106, 107, 108 (1) and 110 (e) and (g) of Cr.P.C. But, it is not the case of the respondents as per the proceedings dated 21-08-2015 in C.No.130/SDPO/North Division, Guntur Urabn/2015 that this petitioner involved in those crimes bound over proceedings. But, the basis for reopening rowdy sheet is involvement in Cr.No.27/2015 and Cr.No.268/2015 and not due to involvement in several crimes bearing Cr.No.463/2015, Cr.No.346/2016, Cr.No.303/2017 and Cr.No.352/2018 for the offences punishable under Section 110 (e) Cr.P.C bound over proceedings.
5
If the reason for opening rowdy sheet is the crimes stated above, then there is subsistence in the contention of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the Government. At the time of filing counter, a new cause is invented for opening rowdy sheet. Therefore, when the proceedings were issued for opening rowdy sheet based on two crimes referred above, which ended in acquittal, after full-fledged trial, involvement of this petitioner in those crimes is not a ground to open rowdy sheet as per Sanding Order 601 of the A.P. Police Manual referred above.
Therefore, opening of rowdy sheet based on the crimes registered which are not referred in the proceedings issued by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer dated 21-08-2015, is a serious illegality and it is vitiated by malafides. Therefore, the rowdy sheet opened against this petitioner is illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, the respondents are directed to close the rowdy sheet opened against this petitioner forthwith.
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed.
As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date: 31-12-2019 IS 6 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION No.9307 of 2019 Date: 31-12-2019 IS