Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners/A.2 to A.4 questioning the action of the respondents in not closing rowdy sheet opened against them on 21.01.2013 on the file of 3rd respondent-Bollaram Police Station.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents.

3. The grievance of the petitioners is that a rowdy sheet has been opened against them on 21.01.2013 on the file of 3rd respondent-Bollaram Police Station based on a single compliant, which was registered as a case in Crime No.85 of 2012 for the offence punishable under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code, which ultimately resulted in acquittal of the petitioners by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for trial of Communal Offence Cases-cum-VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, vide its Judgment, dated 01.10.2015, in Sessions Case No.355 of 2014.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that this Court has already closed the rowdy sheet opened against accused No.1 in Crime No.85 of 2012 and the case of the petitioners also stands on the same footing. He further stated that except the aforesaid crime, there is no crime registered against the petitioners GSD,J wp_26770_2019 and ultimately, prayed this Court to close the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioners herein on 21.01.2013.

7. Insofar as opening of a rowdy sheet is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioners drew the attention of this Court to the Judgment reported in M.Malla Reddy v. State of Telangana and others1, wherein this Court had gone into the details as to when a rowdy sheet can be opened and continued. This Court in the said decision had considered in detail the relevant provision for the purpose of adjudication of the issue and by referring to the A.P Police Standing Order-601 had indicated in what circumstances, a rowdy sheet can be opened. The Hon'ble Court further observed that except in cases, which are covered by the exceptions provided under the said Standing Orders, for a mere single offence, the authorities are not empowered to open a rowdy sheet. He also submitted that persons who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of offence involving a 2016 (1) ALD (Crl.) 591 GSD,J wp_26770_2019 breach of the peace, disturbance to public order and security, a rowdy sheet can be opened.

8. In the present case, since the offence with which the petitioners are charged is under Section 436 I.P.C., which is one of the exceptions carved out for opening of a rowdy sheet, the contention of the petitioners that for a single offence, rowdy sheet cannot be opened does not merit consideration. However, considering the fact that the said complaint, which resulted in a case being registered as Sessions Case No.355 of 2014, was ended in acquittal on 01.10.2015 and no other cases are pending against the petitioners as per the counter of respondent No.3, interference of this Court is called for, as there is no requirement to continue the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner on 21.01.2013. Therefore, the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioners is liable to be closed.