IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 2645 of 2008 Between: Janapa Reddy Subba Rao S/o Appa Raju Naidu R/o Kothapalli Village, Gokavaram Mandal, East Godavari district. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 2 The SHO, Gokavaram PS., East Godavari 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 issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in opening rowdy sheet bearing No.411 Under A.P. Police Standing Orders as illeal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India R/w. A.P. Police Standing Orders and consequently quash the same and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court shall deem fit in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. N. VIJAY Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : * THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI + WRIT PETITION NO.2645 OF 2008 % 16/09/2008 # Janapareddy Subba Rao ... Petitioner Vs. $ 1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District And another. .. Respondents < Gist > Head Note: ! Counsel for the petitioner : Sri N. Vijay ^ Counsel for the respondents : Govt. Pleader for Home Cases referred : [1] 1998(3) ALT 55 (DB); 2 2004 (1) ALD (Crl.) 387 (AP) 3 1999(6) ALT 249 THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.2645 OF 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in opening a rowdy sheet against the petitioner under the A.P. Police Standing Orders as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is stated that against the petitioner, who was an elected President of Mandal Praja Parishad Gokavaram Mandal, East Godavari District and some others Crime No.15/2003 was registered under Section 332 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(x) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. However, having regard to the statements of the complainant as well as the witnesses during the course of investigation, the name of the petitioner was deleted from the array of the accused. Subsequently, another case was registered against the petitioner and 12 others in Crime No.98/2004 on the ﬁle of Gokavaram Police Station under Sections 447, 427, 506 384 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After due investigation, charge sheet was ﬁled before the III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry, which was registered as C.C.No.646 of 2005 and trial is pending. In the meanwhile, a rowdy sheet was opened against the petitioner on the ﬁle of the 2nd respondent-Station House Oﬃcer, Gokavaram Police Station to keep a close watch against him. Aggrieved by the said action, the present writ petition is ﬁled contending that there is absolutely no basis for opening a rowdy sheet since except C.C.No.646 of 2005 on the ﬁle of the III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry, which is pending trial, no other crime has been registered against the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be treated as an habitual offender of offences involving breach of peace. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gokavaram Police Station, the fact that except C.C.No.1463 of 2005 on the ﬁle of the V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry (C.C.No.646 of 2005 on the ﬁle of the IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry), no other case is pending against the petitioner is not disputed. However, it is stated that since the petitioner, who is an active leader in politics, was involved in two criminal cases viz., Crime Nos.15/2003 and 98/2004, it has become incumbent upon the respondents to open a rowdy sheet against him on 23.10.2004. Subsequently the same is being renewed from time to time and it stands extended till 31.10.2008. It is further stated that the petitioner is leading one political party in the village and in the month of March, 2007 when there was a dispute between two groups in the village belonging to diﬀerent communities, it is found that the petitioner led one of the groups. In the circumstances, so as to prevent law and order problem a suo motu case was registered against both the groups in Crime No.32 of 2007 under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ﬁle of Gokavaram Police Station and subsequently the same was ﬁled before the Court Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Rajahmundry. Pursuant thereto, summons were issued to both the groups and the petitioner and his supporters attended the Court on 23.07.2007 and executed bonds for their good behaviour for a period of six months. The said case is pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rajahmundry, vide M.C.No.7 of 2007. Hence, it is necessary to watch the movements of the petitioner since there is every likelihood of his involvement in unlawful activities. Therefore, it is necessary to continue the rowdy sheet in public interest. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while relying upon two decisions of this Court in Puttagunta Pasi v. Commissioner of Police[1] and B. Satyanarayana Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh[2], vehemently contended that continuation of rowdy sheet against the petitioner is contrary to law. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Home sought to justify the impugned action of the respondents while relying upon S. Satyanarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh[3]. A perusal of the Standing Order No.72 of the A.P. Police Standing Orders shows that to include a person’s name in a rowdy sheet, such person shall be a habitual oﬀender i.e., he must habitually commit or abet the commission of oﬀences involving breach of peace. In Puttagunta Pasi v Commissioner of Police (1 supra) a Division Bench of this Court held that rowdy sheets cannot be opened against any individual in a casual and mechanical manner and dubbing a person as a habitual oﬀender to open a rowdy sheet is not suﬃcient. It was also held by the Division Bench that due care and caution shall be taken by the police before characterizing a person as rowdy and that the important element that has to be seen in the acts of the oﬀender is whether the acts so committed by a person will have a tendency to disturb public peace and tranquility. Another Division Bench of this Court in B. Satyanarayana Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2 supra) while considering the question when a person can be called as oﬀender, held that unless the acts complained of are more than one, it cannot be held that involvement of a person even in a solitary case forms the basis for classifying such person as habitually committing oﬀences involving disturbance of public peace and tranquility. In the present case, it is not in dispute that except crime Nos.15/2003, 98/2004 and 32/2007, no new cases are registered against the petitioner as on today. Out of the above cases, the name of the petitioner was deleted from Cr.No.15 of 2003 during the course of investigation itself. So far as Crime No.98/2004 is concerned, it is pending trial on the ﬁle of the Court of the V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry. The charge sheet ﬁled under Section 447, 427, 506, 384 read with 34 IPC in the said case shows that the petitioner is involved in the alleged oﬀences of criminal trespass, mischief causing damage to an amount of Rs.50/-, criminal intimidation and extortion. Moreover, subsequently, proceedings were also initiated against him under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on an allegation that there was likelihood of committing breach of peace. As could be seen, the oﬀences alleged against the petitioner in the above case relate to breach of peace. Hence, though only one case is pending against the petitioner as on today, the respondents cannot be found fault with in continuing the rowdy sheet against the petitioner. Further, admittedly as per the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rajahmundry vide M.C.No.7/2007, the petitioner executed a bond for his good behaviour. The said fact shows that the Magistrate was of the opinion that there was suﬃcient ground for proceeding against him under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, a writ of mandamus as prayed for cannot be granted. However, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to review the case of the petitioner on expiry of the validity of the existing rowdy sheet and pass appropriate orders after considering whether there is any necessity to continue the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner for further period. No costs. 16.09.2008. Kgr Note:- LR copy to be marked. (B/O) gbs [1] 1998(3) ALT 55 (DB); [2] 2004 (1) ALD (Crl.) 387 (AP) [3] 1999(6) ALT 249