THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.7772 of 2010 Dated:14th June, 2010 Between: Mir Hussain Ali S/o. S.M.Abid Ali ….Petitioner and 1. The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District & Ors. …Respondents **** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.7772 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed by Mir Hussain Ali with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not closing the rowdy sheet opened against him despite his acquittal in Crime No.235 of 2002 of Rajendra Nagar Police Station; Crime No.345 of 2003 of Malkajgiri Police Station, and Crime No197 of 2005 of Dabeerpura Police Station as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. 2. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Moulali and he is eking out his livelihood as car driver. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Malkajgiri Police Station-2nd respondent registered a case in Crime No.345 of 2003 against the petitioner and others for the offences under Sections 147, 148,120-B, 302, 201 r/w.149 IPC. The Police after due investigation filed charge-sheet and thereupon, the petitioner faced trial in Sessions Case No.168 of 2004 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District, and the same ended in acquittal on 06.04.2006. A rowdy sheet has been opened against the petitioner and the 2nd respondent has been repeatedly calling the petitioner to the police station. Hence, he filed this Writ Petition with the prayer stated supra. For better understanding of the grievance of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to refer para.4 of the affidavit filed in support of Writ Petition, which reads as hereunder: “I submit that as I was allegedly involved in the above said crimes which were ended with acquittal, the 2nd respondent has been calling me to his police station on the ground that a rowdy sheet has been opened against me and he has been frequently registering the cases under bound over cases for good behaviour under Sections 108, 109, 110 though I have not involved in any cases except the above said alleged crimes which were ended with acquittal and which is not a ground for opening the rowdy sheet against me. I submit that I requested the 2nd respondent that I have not involved in any cases except the cases which were allegedly registered against me as stated supra and not to call me to his police station and requested him to close the alleged rowdy sheet opened against me, but he did not take any steps to close the alleged rowdy sheet opened in his police station, but he has been harassing me by calling to his police station and displaying my name as rowdy sheeter in his police station. I submit that as the 2nd respondent did not respond to my oral presentations, I made a written representation on 15-3-2010 to the 1st respondent wherein I have categorically stated that I have not involved in any crime and I further stated that I have been calling by the 2nd respondent to his police station and harassing me on the alleged ground that rowdy sheet has been opened against me, though I have not involved in any crime and no cases are pending against me and I further requested the 1st respondent to close the rowdy sheet opened by the 2nd respondent if any as he has been harassing me by calling to his police station on every alternative days. But so far the 1st respondent has not taken any action to close the alleged rowdy sheet which is pending in 2nd respondent police station which is illegal, arbitrary on the part of the 1st respondent. I submit that admittedly, except Crime No.235/2002 and Crime No.197/2005 and Crime No.345/2003 which were ended acquittal, I have not involved in any other cases and as such the respondents cannot harass me by calling me to his police station on the alleged ground that rowdy sheet is opened against me which is violation of Article 21 o the Constitution of India and also contrary to Orders 741 and 742 of the Police Standing Orders. I submit that it is also relevant to state that the 2nd respondent is harassing by calling me to his police station on any event which arises in the city and is depriving my peaceful life. I submit that I belong to poor family and I am living by doing Car driver and as such the action of the 2nd respondent in calling me to his police station is depriving of my livelihood and violation of my right to live guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and causing inconvenience to me and as such if the respondents are not directed by this Honourable Court to close the alleged rowdy sheet opened against me I will suffer irreparable loss and injury.” 3. When the Writ Petition came up for admission, learned Asst. Government Pleader for Home takes notice on behalf of the respondents. The respondents filed counter-affidavit. 4. Mr.G.Manaiah, Sub-Inspector of Police, Nacharam P.S., has sworn to the counter-affidavit. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner is a rowdy element and involved in a murder case. It is further stated that a rowdy-sheet was opened against the petitioner on 04.12.2001 on the file of Malkajgiri P.S. and as the petitioner shifted his residence in the limits of Nacharam Police Station, the rowdy-sheet opened at Malkajigir P.S. was transferred to Nacharam P.S. on 12.12.2009 on the point of jurisdiction and it is being continued and renewed from time to time and it stands extended till 31.12.2010. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Asst. Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that except Crime No.90 of 2000 of Malkajgiri P.S. as stated in the counter- affidavit, there are no other crimes registered against the petitioner. A further submission has been made that even according to the counter- affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner faced trial in Sessions Case No.533 of 2002 relatable to Crime No.90 of 2000 and the same ended in acquittal on 17.03.2003 and in which case, there is no justification for the respondents to continue the rowdy sheet against the petitioner. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.2602 of 2008, dated 21.11.2008 (Sri Ganesh v. The State of A.P.). 7. Learned Asst. Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents submits that continuance of the name of the petitioner in rowdy-sheet is as per Order 601-G of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual. According to the learned Asst. Government Pleader for Home, the petitioner is likely to instigate communal or caste or political riots and therefore, the respondents are justified in continuing the rowdy sheet against the petitioner. 8. As on this day, there is no material placed before me by the respondents that the petitioner is involved in any crimes, after Crime No.197 of 2005. Nearly 5 years have been elapsed and subsequently, no crime appears to have been registered against the petitioner and no complaint seems to have been pending against the petitioner. Even the case arising out of Crime No.197 of 2005, which was registered in the year 2005, ended in acquittal. There is no complaint against him from any one for the last 5 years. There is no material on record to suggest of his propensity to involve in any crime. Therefore, I am of the view that continuance of rowdy-sheet against the petitioner is wholly unjustified and unwarranted. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed declaring the action of the respondents in not closing the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:14th June, 2010. cs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.7772 of 2010 Dated:14th June, 2010