IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 4735 of 2009 Between: 1 Gudivaka Vasudevudu S/o. Venkateswara Rao R/o. H.No. 135/1, IV Phase, Kukatpally Housing Board, Hyderabad. 2 Pushadapu Ratna Gopal S/o. Subba Rao R/o. Kokkiligadda Kothapalem, Mopidevi Mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Superintending Engineer of Police Krishna District at Machilipatnam. 2 The Circle Inspector of Police Avanigadda Circle Avanigadda Mandal, Krishna District. 3 The Station House Officer Avanigadda Police Station Avanigadda Mandal, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein in continuing the rowdy sheet against the petitioners herein in Avanigadda Police Station, Krishna District is illegal, arbitrary, capricious, and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents herein to close the rowdy sheet, which is pending before the 3rd respondent by directing the respondents not to interfere with the personal liberty of the petitioners herein after and grant such other relief and reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.GADE VENKATESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioners to declare the action of respondents in maintaining the rowdy sheet against them as illegal, arbitrary and violative Standing Order 742 apart from violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Art. 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and Consequently to direct the 3rd respondent to forthwith close the rowdy sheet opened against them. It is the case of the petitioners that they were falsely implicated in Crime No.36 of 2004 on the file of Taluka Police Station at Mahcilipatnam, which was committed to the Sessions Court and the same was numbered as S.C.No.339 of 2007 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge at Machilipatnam. The said case is under trial. While so, a rowdy sheet was opened against them pursuant to the above stated case and the same was transferred to the 3rd respondent police station and he is calling them to the station from time to time without any cause. Though they appraised him several times to close the rowdy sheet opened against them as they are not involved in any offence since 2004, their request has not been acceded to and hence this writ petition. On the earlier occasion, when the writ petition was taken up, the learned Government Pleader for Home took time to obtain instructions and today he submits that to curb and curtail the unlawful activities of the petitioners, a detailed report was submitted by the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Bandar Taluk Police Station to the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Machilipatnam and permission was obtained to open rowdy sheets against the petitioners and accordingly they are being continued and renewed form time to time. However, it is admitted that except once case which is under trial, there are no other cases pending or registered against the petitioners. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Home for the respondents. Though the respondents contend that to curb and curtail the unlawful activities of the petitioners, rowdy sheets were opened against them, the admitted fact remains that only one case, i.e. Crime No. 36 of 2004 under Sections 307 read with 34 IPC was registered against the petitioners and it is pending trial before the Assistant Sessions Court, Mahcilipatnam. Except this crime, the respondents are not able to say whether there is any other crime registered against the petitioners either within the jurisdiction of respondent No.3-police station or any other police station. That apart, a Division Bench of this Court in B. Satyanarayana Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1], considered the question of justifiability of the police in opening rowdy sheet against a person who was involved in only one crime, in the light of the expressions “habitually commit”, “attempt to commit” and “abet the commission of offences”, employed in S.O. 742, and held in paragraphs 15, 18 and 19, as follows: The very expressions “habitually commit”, “attempt to commit” and “abet the commission of offences” indicate the requirement that at least two or more cases have been registered against the person concerned to characterize such person as a person who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences. Unless the acts complaint of are more than one, it cannot be held that the involvement of a person even in a solitary case itself forms the basis for classifying such person as “habitually committing the offences” involving disturbance to the public peace and tranquility. The appellant in the instant case is involved in one criminal case and charge-sheet was filed against him under Sections 324, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The offences alleged against the appellant herein have nothing to do with the breach of peace. That solitary incident, in which the appellant herein is alleged to have involved, itself cannot constitute any basis or ground to classify him as a rowdy sheeter. In the case on hand, as admitted by the respondents, the petitioners are involved only in one case, referred to above, and the same is pending trial. Except that case, they are not involved in any case either within the jurisdiction of respondent No.3-police station or any other police station. Since the petitioners involved only in one case, the same by itself cannot form basis for the respondents to continue the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioners in the year 1998. Therefore, having regard to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in B. Satyanarayana Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, it is appropriate that the respondents should be directed to close the impugned rowdy sheets opened against the petitioners on the file of respondent No.3- police station. Hence, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to close the impugned rowdy sheets opened against the petitioners. This order, however, does not preclude the respondents from opening the rowdy sheet against the petitioners if there is any substantial material to suggest that they are habitually committing or attempting to commit or abetting the commission of offences. No costs. N.V. RAMANA, J. Dt 06.04.2009 msv [1] 2004 (1) ALD (Crl.) 387 (AP)