IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 8149 of 2009 Between: Syed Adam @ Shakeel S/o. Jahangir R/o. H.No.20-7-365, Fathe Darwaza, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Police Charminar Hyderabad. 2 Assistant Commissioner of Police Hussaini Alam Hyderabad. 3 Inspector of Police Hussaini Alam Police Station Hyderabad City. .....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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondents in opening the Rowdy Sheet on 4-7-08 against the Petitioner at Hussaini Alam Police Station as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.SURESH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO.8149 OF 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner to declare the action of the respondents in opening a rowdy sheet against him as illegal, arbitrary and violative of 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 respondents to forthwith close the rowdy sheet so opened. The petitioner states that he hails from a respectable family and is doing business in sarees for the last three years and leading a peaceful life. While so, in the month of January, 2007, has was falsely implicated in Crime No.6 of 2007 of Shalibanda Police Station, Hyderabad registered under Sections 147, 148, 307, 427, 353 read with 149 IPC and Section 25(1) of Arms Act and Section 7(a) of the Criminal Amendment Act. Initially, the said crime was registered against A.1 to A.5 and subsequently he was implicated in the said case on the ground that he was found in possession of base ball bat and was shown as A.14 in the said crime. He was arrested and subsequently released on bail. Except the said crime, he was not involved in any other case. However, the respondents opened a rowdy sheet against him on 4.7.2008 at Hussaini Alam Police Station. Since under the guise of rowdy sheet, the police are frequently visiting his house and are regularly calling him to the police station and taking the signatures, he approached respondents 2 and 3 and requested to close the rowdy sheet. Instead of closing the rowdy sheet, the 3rd respondent got a case registered against him in Cr.No.46 of 2009 under Section 41(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure at Hussaini Alam Police Station on the ground that he was found at Fathedarwaja locality in suspicious circumstances and took him to the Special Executive Magistrate and obtained a bond from him under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. The grievance of the petitioner is that only in order to retain the rowdy sheet opened against him, the respondents are booking the cases against him. In response to the writ allegations, the 3rd respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit inter alia stating that the petitioner is an active and young element indulging in committing bodily offence along with rowdy sheeter Ayb Khan and associates and is involved in Cr.No.6 of 2007 of P.S.Shalibanda and on discrete enquiry in the locality of Fathe Darwaza, most of the locals informed them that the petitioner is a nuisance to the locality and that he beats weak persons, does gundaism in the locality and nobody dares to complain against him to the police due to his fear. It is stated that as the crime in which the petitioner was involved was in association with a notorious gangster and rowdy sheeter Ayub Khan of South Zone, surveillance of police is essential against his activities, and, therefore, a rowdy sheet was opened against the petitioner and the same was being continued. Ultimately it is stated that the petitioner is facing trial in Cr.No.6/2007 at this stage and if the rowdy sheet opened against him is closed, there is every likelihood of his tampering with the evidence and gain over the witnesses. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home for the respondents. Having gone through the writ allegations and the counter affidavit filed on 25.4.2009, in view of the apprehension of the respondents that in case if the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner is closed, there is every likelihood of his tampering with the evidence and gain over the witnesses, this Court again directed the learned Government Pleader for Home to obtain information as to the activities of the petitioner at present. Today, the learned Government Pleader submitted that only one case is pending against the petitioner as on today and that he is not involved in any other case. 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 petitioner is involved only in one case, referred to above, and the same is pending trial. Except that case, he is said to be not involved in any case either within the jurisdiction of respondent No.3-police station or any other police station. Since the petitioner is involved only in one case, the same by itself cannot form basis for the respondents to continue the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner. 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 sheet opened against the petitioner on the file of respondent No.3-police station. Hence, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to close the impugned rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner. This order, however, does not preclude the respondents from opening the rowdy sheet against the petitioner if there is any substantial material to suggest that he is habitually committing or attempting to commit or abetting the commission of offences. No costs. N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated msv [1] 2004 (1) ALD (Crl.) 387 (AP)