IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5690 of 2009 Between: 1 Lallulal Yadav S/o.Late Tuljaram Yadav R/o.14-7-321, Sankar Bazar,Begum Bazar Hyderabad 2 Mukundlal Yadav S/o.Lallulal Yadav R/o.14-7-321, Sankar Bazar,Begum Bazar Hyderabad 3 Charanlal Yadav @ Chaganlal Yadav S/o.Gopal Yadav R/o.14-7-321, Sankar Bazar,Begum Bazar Hyderabad ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Commissioner of Police (Task Force) Basheerbagh, Hyderabad 2 The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Goshamahal Hyderabad 3 The Inspector of Police, Mangalhat ,Hyderabad 4 The Station House officer, Shahinayatgunj Police station Hyderabad 5 The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Afzalgunj Division Hyderabad 6 The Inspector of Police, Afzalgunj Division Hyderabad 7 The Station House officer, Afzalgunj Police station Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.D.RAMALINGA SWAMY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: Feeling aggrieved by opening of rowdy sheets by respondent Nos.3 and 4, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition. Petitioner No.1 is the father of petitioner No.2 and petitioner No.3 is their family member. They are carrying on jewellery business in Begum Bazaar, Hyderabad. When a rowdy sheet was opened against petitioner No.1 on an earlier occasion, he filed W.P.No.19945 of 1996 and this Court, while observing that no material was placed before this Court to substantiate the vague allegations made against petitioner No.1 and no particulars of the offences alleged, in which he was stated to have indulged, were mentioned, disposed of the said Writ Petition on 28-08-2007 and quashed the rowdy sheet against petitioner No.1 as being contrary to Police Standing Order No.742. Subsequently, when a fresh rowdy sheet was opened against petitioner No.1 and also against petitioner Nos.2 and 3, they filed W.P.No.15465 of 2007, which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 27-07-2007 directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 therein to dispose of the petitioners’ representation for closing the rowdy sheets. In compliance with the same, order dated 29-08-2007 was passed by respondent No.2 declining to close the rowdy sheets against the petitioners. Questioning the said Order, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.3, it is inter alia stated that rowdy sheet opened against petitioner No.1 on 08-12-1989 was closed on 09-10-1997; that after closing of the said rowdy sheet, petitioner No.1 was again involved as accused No.2 in Crime No.300 of 2007, registered for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) on the file of the Afzalgunj Police Station, and therefore, a fresh rowdy sheet was opened against him on 15-05-2007. It is further stated that the said case is pending trial vide CC.No.671 of 2008. With regard to petitioner No.2, it is stated that he figured as one of the accused in Crime No.300 of 2007 and therefore, a rowdy sheet was opened against him as well. As regards petitioner No.3, it is stated that he was involved in Crime No.70 of 2006, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 509 read with 149 IPC of Shahinayathgunj Police Station, and also in Petty Case No.495 of 2007, registered for the offence punishable under Section 70 (b) of the City Police Act. It is further stated that the said two crimes ended in the acquittal of petitioner No.3 but he was again involved in Crime No.300 of 2007, and therefore, a rowdy sheet was opened against him also on 27-03-2006 on the file of Shahinayathgunj Police Station, Hyderabad. In Paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the petitioners are continuing their unlawful activities and that in order to curb and curtail the same, rowdy sheets are opened against them as there is a likelihood of their committing breach of peace in the vicinity. At the hearing, Sri D.Ramalingaswamy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, placed reliance on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in Puttagunta Pasi @ Penta Pasi vs. Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada and another[1] to drive home his contention that mere involvement in a crime should not be a ground to open a rowdy sheet. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, opposing the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, placed reliance on Standing Order No.601 of the Police Standing Orders and submitted that since the petitioners have got a criminal back ground and have been disturbing the peace and tranquility of the area, in which they have been living, the rowdy sheets have been opened against them and there is no illegality in the said action. I n Puttagunta Pasi vs. Commissioner of Police (1st cited supra), the Division Bench relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Dhanji Ram Sharma vs. Superintendent of Police, Delhi[2] wherein it is held as under: “A habitual offender or a person habitually addicted to crime is one who is a criminal by habit or by disposition formed by repetition of crimes. Reasonable belief of the police officer that the suspect is a habitual offender or is a person habitually addicted to crime is sufficient to justify action under Rr. 23.4 (3) (b) and 23.9 (2). Mere belief is not sufficient. The belief must be reasonable, it must be based on reasonable grounds. The suspect may or may not have been convicted of any crime. Even apart from any conviction, there may be reasonable grounds for believing that he is a habitual offender.” The Division Bench also relied on Kamma Bapuji and others vs. Station House Officer, Brahmasamudram and another[3] wherein a learned single Judge of this Court held that rowdy sheets cannot be opened against an individual in a casual and mechanical manner and that opening a rowdy sheet by merely dubbing a person as a habitual offender is not sufficient and that due care and caution shall be taken by the Police before characterizing a person as a rowdy. It was further held that the main element that is essential for opening the rowdy sheet is that the acts of an offender should have a tendency to disturb public peace and tranquility. If the ratio of the abovementioned judgments is applied to the cases on hand, I am of the view that there can be no justification to open rowdy sheet against petitioner No. 1. As noted earlier, this Court, on an earlier occasion, quashed the rowdy sheet opened against petitioner No.1 by holding that no material, whatsoever, was produced by the Police to justify opening of such a rowdy sheet. The only development that has taken place subsequent to the said judgment is the alleged involvement of petitioner No.1 in Crime No.300 of 2007, which was registered for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w Section 34 IPC. Therefore, it cannot be said that petitioner No.1 is a habitual offender, who has the potential to disturb the public peace and tranquility in the area. However, coming to petitioner Nos.2 and 3, they are involved in more than one offence. Petitioner No.2 is an accused in Crime Nos.300 and 335 of 2007 and investigation into the said two crimes is pending. Similarly, though petitioner No.3 was involved in Crime Nos.70 of 2006, 495 of 2007 and 300 of 2007, he was acquitted in the first two crimes and only Crime No.300 of 2007 is pending. These facts clearly suggest that they have the tendency to commit offences and there is every justification for the Police to apprehend causing of breach of peace and tranquility by petitioner Nos.2 and 3. Therefore, I see no ground to interfere with the opening of rowdy sheets against petitioner Nos.2 and 3. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is partly allowed and the rowdy sheet opened against petitioner No.1 is quashed. The rowdy sheets opened against petitioner Nos.2 and 3 does not call for interference and the Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed in respect of petitioner Nos.2 and 3. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 4th June, 2008 LUR [1] 1998 (3) ALT 55 (D.B.) [2] AIR 1966 SC 1766 [3] 1997 (6) ALD 583 = 1998 (2) An.W.R. 55