IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 5182 of 2004 Between: 1 T.Damodaram, s/o Siddaiah, Cultivators, r/o Srinivasapuram, Uppanki Harijanawada, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 2 T.Devarajulu, s/o Siddaiah, Cultivators, r/o Srinivasapuram, Uppanki Harijanawada, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 3 T.Lakshminarayana, s/o Siddaiah, Cultivators, r/o Srinivasapuram, Uppanki Harijanawada, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, Chittoor District at Chittoor. 2 The Sub Inspector of Police, Tirupathi East Police Station, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamusdeclaring the action of the respondents in opening and continuing rowdy sheet against him and pursuant torture against theother petitioners and himself by regular domiciliary visits and surveillance of the police is illegal, irregular, unconstitutional being violative of Art.14, 19, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also contravenes the provisions of A.P.Police Standing Orders and consequently direct the respondents not to continue rowdy sheet and not to interfere with their personal liberty and life in any manner Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioners seek to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in opening and continuing rowdy sheets against them, as illegal and arbitrary. It is stated as against the first petitioner four cases viz. Cr.No.127 of 1984 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 452, 427, 324 r/w 149 IPC, Cr.No.66 of 1988 for the offences under Sections 324, 323 r/w 34 IPC, Crime No.171 of 1988 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 324, 302 r/w 149 IPC and Crime No.221 of 1988for the offence under Section 110(e) Cr.P.C. have been registered and therefore, rowdy sheet was opened against him. After opening the rowdy sheet, the first petitioner also involved in five more crimes i.e. Cr.No.202 of 1994 for the offence under Section 107 Cr.P.C., Crime No.40 of 1999 for the offence under Sections 447, 506, 323, r/w 34 IPC, Crime No.122 of 2002 for the offence under Sections 143, 323 and 506 IPC, Crime No.393 of 2002 for the offence under Sections 447, 427, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Crime No.113 of 2003 for the offence under Sections 147, 342, 384, 323, 506 r/w 149 IPC. It is stated that out of 9 crimes, three cases i.e. Crime Nos.122/2002, 393 of 2002 and 113 of 2003 are pending against the first petitioner. It is further stated that as against the petitioners 2 and 3 two crimes i.e. Cr.No.393 of 2002 and 113 of 2003 are pending. Therefore, it cannot be said that the rowdy sheets opened against the petitioners is illegal and arbitrary. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the cases registered against the petitioners have been ended in acquittal and no cases are pending against them. I am not inclined to express any opinion with regard to acquittal or pending of cases against the petitioners. However, if any person is not figuring as accused in the previous 5 years after the last case in which he was involved, it should not precluded the SP/DCP/CP to continue his history sheet if SP/DCP/CP is of the considered view that his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or one affecting peace and tranquility in the area or the victims are not coming forward to give complaint against him on account of threat from him. Having regard to the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that it is for the authority concerned to consider and review the rowdy sheets pending against the petitioners keeping in view the aforesaid police standing orders. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioners to make a representation before the first respondent for closure of the rowdy sheets pending against them and on filing such representation, the first respondent may consider and dispose of the same after calling the report from the second respondent and keeping in view the aforesaid provisions of the A.P. Police Manual, Part-I, Volume-II. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. Date:30.04.2008 Ccm To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RS}