IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9147 of 2009 Between: 1 Syed Muslim Abbas Moosavi S/o. Late Syed Sajjad Hussaini Moosavi R/o. 22-7-268/8, Diwan Devdi, Hyderabad. 2 Mir Raza Ali Moosavi S/o. Mir Baqer Ali Al Moosavi Bargahi R/o. 22-7-268/8, Diwan Devdi, Hyderabad. 3 Mir Imran Ali Moosavi S/o. Mir Baqer Ali Al Moosavi Bargahi R/o. 22-7-268/8, Diwan Devdi, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Commissioner of Police Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner of Police South Zone Hyderabad. 3 The Station House Officer Michowk Police Station .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.M.GOVIND REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3, in opening rowdy sheets against the petitioners, as illegal, unconstitutional and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Heard Sri B.Vijaysen Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. Petitioner No.1 is the first cousin of petitioner Nos.2 and 3, who are natural brothers. Over a dispute pertaining to Management of Darghas-E-Hazarte Abbas, inside Diwan Devdi, Hyderabad, rivalry developed between the father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and other family members. O.S.No.34 of 2004 is pending before the Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad, in connection with the said dispute. An incident has taken place on 22-09-2008 wherein, it was alleged that, the petitioners attacked women folk and when the complainant- Turab Ali, who is a close relative of the petitioners, tried to intervene, he was injured badly on his lower lip. The said complaint was registered as Crime No.174 of 2008 of Meer Chowk Police Station. That Criminal Case is, obviously, the basis for opening rowdy sheets against the petitioners. No counter-affidavit is filed by the respondents. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that by the time, the rowdy sheets were opened against the petitioners, there was only one Criminal Case viz., Crime No.174 of 2008, pending against them. She further submitted that thereafter, a binding over case viz., Crime No.73 of 2009 under Sections 41 (a) and 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.,’) and another Crime viz., Crime No.84 of 2009 under Section 151 Cr.P.C., were registered against the petitioners on 06-04-2009 and 16-04-2009 respectively. The Police are empowered to open history sheets and rowdy sheets against the persons, who are habitual in committing offences and causing breach of peace and public order. Police Standing Order No.601 of the A.P.Police Manual deals with the rowdy sheets and the Police are empowered to open rowdy sheets in respect of the following category of persons: “A. Persons who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of, offences involving a breach of the peace, disturbance to public order and security. B. Persons bound over under Sections 106, 107, 108 (1) (i) and 110 (e) and (g) of Cr.P.C. C. Persons who have been convicted more than once in two consecutive years under Sections 59 land 70 of the Hyderabad City Police Act or under section 3, clause 12, of the AP Towns Nuisances Act. D. Persons who habitually tease women and girls and pass indecent remarks. E. Rowdy sheets for the rowdies residing in one Police Station area but found frequenting the other PSs area, can be maintained at all such Police Stations. F. Persons who intimidate by threats or use of physical violence or other unlawful means to part with movable or immovable properties or in the habit of collecting money by extortion from shopkeepers, traders and other residents. G. Persons who incite and instigate communal/caste or political riots. H. Persons detained under the “AP Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoitsm, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land-Grabbers Act, 1986” for a period of 6 months or more. I. Persons who are convicted for offences under the Representatives of the Peoples’ Act for rigging and carrying away ballot paper, Boxes and other polling material.” From the admitted facts referred to above, it is evident that the petitioners do not fall in any of the abovementioned categories. While Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees life and personal liberty of persons, opening of a rowdy sheet not only brings disrepute to the dignity and honour of an individual, but it seriously affects his personal liberty. Therefore, circumspection is required to be observed before a rowdy sheet is opened against any person. Even if the petitioners have indulged in commission of a crime, which was registered under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, in the absence of any material to show that they were prone to habitually committing the criminal acts, the solitary incident involving the petitioners in the alleged criminal offence does not warrant opening of rowdy sheets against them. In Puttagunta Pasi vs. Commissioner of Police[1], a Division Bench of this Court relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Dhanji Ram Sharma vs. Superintendent of Police, Delhi[2] wherein it was 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. Though the learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that subsequent to the opening of the rowdy sheets, two cases have been registered against the petitioners, I have not felt impressed by her contention. As on the date when the rowdy sheets were opened against the petitioners, only one Criminal Case, registered for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, was pending against them. Even from the nature of the subsequent cases, it is clear that they are not so serious as to warrant continuance of rowdy sheets. For the abovementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to forthwith close rowdy sheets against the petitioners. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.11969 of 2009 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 18th June, 2009 LUR [1] 1998 (3) ALT 55 (D.B.) [2] AIR 1966 SC 1766 [3] 1997 (6) ALD 583 = 1998 (2) An.W.R. 55