THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18011 of 2009 ORDER: In this writ petition, petitioner questioned the action of the respondents in opening and maintaining rowdy sheet against him on the file of Mirchowk Police Station, Hyderabad and that he seeks consequential direction to the respondents to close the rowdy sheet opened against him. It is the case of the petitioner that he is studying M.B.A. Course and he was falsely implicated in Crime No.182 of 2008 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 506 IPC and based on the same, the respondents have opened the rowdy sheet against him. It is also his case that opening of rowdy sheet is governed by the Standing Orders of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual and though he will not fall in any of the categories mentioned in Standing Order No.602 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual, the rowdy sheet is being maintained against him illegally. The fourth respondent - Inspector of Police, Mirchowk Police Station, Hyderabad, has filed counter-affidavit. In the counter-affidavit, while denying the allegations of the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner involved in Crime No.182 of 2008, which was registered for the offences under Sections 324 and 506 IPC on the file of Mirchowk Police Station. The case was charged on 06.02.2009, it is pending trial vide C.C.No.161 of 2009 and it is posted to 29.04.2011. It is further stated that there was also another case registered against him in Crime No.48 of 2009 under Section 107 Cr.P.C. and the petitioner was bound over for a period of one year for his good behaviour in view of General Elections of Andhra Pradesh Assembly and the Parliament, in 2009. It is also stated that in view of involvement of the petitioner in the above said criminal cases and to curb and curtail his unlawful activities, rowdy sheet was opened against him on 27.11.2008 as per the orders of the third respondent - Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mirchowk Division, Hyderabad, vide proceedings No.1179/IW/MC-DVN/08, dated 27.11.2008, and it is being continued. Even as per the averments in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, the rowdy sheet was opened against the petitioner on 27.11.2008 and by that time, only one crime was registered against the petitioner i.e. Crime No.182 of 2008 under Sections 324 and 506 IPC. So far as Crime No.48 of 2009 on the file of Mirchowk Police Station is concerned, it is to be noticed that the said crime was registered in 2009 and it is for binding over the petitioner for a period of one year. As per Standing Order No.602 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual, certain categories of persons against whom rowdy sheet can be opened are enumerated. As much as by the time the rowdy sheet was opened against the petitioner, there was only one case registered against him and it is also pending trial, he will not fall in any of the categories of the above mentioned Standing Order. Mere involvement in a single crime, the accused cannot be termed as habitual offender within the meaning of Standing Order No.602-1A of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual. Even, bind over proceedings were initiated against the petitioner in 2009. It is also to be noticed that whenever a rowdy sheet is opened against an accused, at the end of the year, it is to be reviewed periodically by assessing his conduct. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that there is no basis for opening rowdy sheet against the petitioner on 27.11.2008 because by that time, he involved in only one crime i.e. Crime No.182 of 2008 and it is also pending trial and bind over period in Crime No.48 of 2009 registered against him was also expired. For the aforesaid reasons, the rowdy sheet opened and being maintained against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the rowdy sheet opened and being continued against the petitioner on the file of Mirchowk Police Station is hereby quashed. It is made clear that if the petitioner involves in any other crime in future, this will not preclude the respondents to open a fresh rowdy sheet against him. The writ petition is allowed with the directions referred to above. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 7th APRIL, 2011. kvni