THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.7855 of 2010 Dated:14th June, 2010 Between: Mir Murtuza Ali Khan Razvi @ Murtuza S/o.late Mir Shabbir Ali Khan Razvi ….Petitioner and 1. The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District & Ors. …Respondents **** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.7855 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed by Mir Murtuza Ali Khan Razvi @ Murtuza 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 Sessions Case No.533 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, relatable to the Crime No.90 of 2000 of P.S.Malkajgiri, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. 2. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Moulali and he is doing business. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Malkajgiri Police Station-2nd respondent registered a case in Crime No.90 of 2000 against the petitioner along with others for the offences under Sections 302 r/w.149 IPC. The Police after due investigation filed charge-sheet and thereupon, the petitioner faced trial in Sessions Case No.533 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, and the same ended in acquittal on 17.03.2003. 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.5 of the affidavit filed in support of Writ Petition, which reads as hereunder: “I submit that as the 2nd respondent did not respond to my oral representations, 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 frequently though I have not involved in any crime and he has been 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 that due to harassment made by the 2nd respondent my mental balance has been disturbed and I am being treated by the consultant Psychiatrist and requested to save my life by directing the 2nd respondent to close the rowdy sheet opened by the 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 the 2nd respondent police station which is illegal, arbitrary on the part of the 1st respondent. I submit that admittedly, except Crime No.90/2000 (S.C.No.533/2002) which was ended in acquittal on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy in its judgment dated 17.3.2003 and Crime No.345/2003 (S.C.No.168/2004) which was also ended with an acquittal in its judgment dated 6-4-2006. 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 of 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 3rd respondent is harassing by calling me to his police station on any event which arise in the city and is depriving my peaceful life. I submit that I belong to poor family and I am not able to do anything as I became dependent on my wife who is feeding my family as I am having three daughters and she is looking after me now as I am unable to earn due to my mental disturbance 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 1 and 2. The 2nd respondent filed counter-affidavit. 4. Mr.N.Srinivasa Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police, Malkajgiri Police Station, has sworn to the counter-affidavit. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner belongs to ‘Aklbari’ group in ‘Shia’ community having active criminal background and that at any point of time he may commit crime. 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 the two crimes 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 2nd respondent, the petitioner faced trial in both the Sessions Cases i.e. S.C.No.533 of 2002 and S.C.No.168 of 2004, relatable to the said two crimes and the said two sessions cases ended in acquittal on 17.03.2003 and 06.04.2006 respectively 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.345 of 2003. Nearly 7 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 two crimes i.e. Crime No.90 of 2000 and Crime No.345 of 2003, which were registered in the years 2000 and 2003 respectively, ended in acquittal. There is no complaint against him from any one for the last 7 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.7855 of 2010 Dated:14th June, 2010