IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7722 of 2006 Between: Rakasi Mohan Reddy, s/o Narsimha Reddy, r/o Sripuram Vg., Nagarkurnool Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, Mahaboobnagar District. 2 The Station House Officer, Police Station, Nagarkurnool. ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR AKKAM ESWAR FOR MR V.HANUMANTHA RAO Counsel for the respondents: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare opening of rowdy sheet against the petitioner as illegal. The petitioner was the Sarpanch of Sripuram Village. He was involved in three criminal cases, the details of which are as under- Case No. Offences charged with C.C.No.36 of 1996 Sections 341,447 and 504 IPC STC No.3 of 1998 Sections 341, 186 r/w 34 IPC STC No.217 of 2000 Sections 341,504,506 r/w 109 IPC In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner claimed that as he was in active politics, he was implicated in criminal cases at the instance of his political adversaries. He pleaded that C.C.No.36 of 1996 ended in his acquittal on 06-06-1997 and STC No.3 of 1998 also ended in his acquittal on 22-03-1998. The petitioner further submitted that in STC No.217 of 2000, he was convicted and sentenced to fine, against which he carried the matter in Criminal Appeal No.115 of 2002, which is stated to be pending in the Court of Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar. It is the case of the petitioner that as all the three cases were foisted against him; that the said cases are no longer pending and that he is not involved in any fresh cases, there is no justification in law for the respondents to continue the rowdy sheet. No counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. Opening of a rowdy sheet certainly affects the dignity and honour of a citizen. Unless it is shown that a person is habitually indulging in committing offences, which disturb the peace and public order, it is not desirable to open rowdy sheets. Even if the circumstances at one point of time warranted opening of such rowdy sheets, the police will have to closely monitor the same and close them if such persons stop committing further offences and the criminal cases ended in their acquittal. In the present case, the plea of the petitioner that all the three cases have already been closed and that he did not indulge in commission of any fresh offences has not been controverted by the respondents. In this admitted fact situation, I do not find any justification for the respondents to continue the rowdy sheet against the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to close the rowdy sheet. This order, however, does not preclude the respondents from taking action against the petitioner, if he is found to have indulged in commission of any offence in future. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 16th June, 2009 vrn