THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.10464 OF 2004 DATED: 24-04-2007 BETWEEN Sunkara Ramakrishna, S/o. Janardhana Rao, R/o. Jangareddygudem (V) and Mandal, W.G. District and two others. …PETITIONERS AND The Superintendent of Police, Government of A.P., Eluru, W.G. District and another. …RESPONDENTS ORDER: Petitioners seek a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in opening rowdy sheets against them as illegal and arbitrary and ultravires the Police Standing Orders and consequently to direct the respondents to delete their names from the rowdy sheets. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the criminal cases registered against the petitioners ended in acquittal and therefore, there is no justification in continuing the rowdy sheets opened against them. 3. Counter has been filed by the second respondent stating that three cases were registered against the first petitioner i.e. Cr.No.130 of 2000 for the offence under Section 384 read 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ended in acquittal on 27.11.2003; Cr.No.86-93 of 2001 and Cr.No.61 of 2004 under Section 110(e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was bound over vide M.C.No.10 of 2001 dated 02.07.2001 by the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Jangareddygudem for keeping good behaviour for a period of six months. Insofar as the second petitioner is concerned Cr.No.130 of 2000 was registered for the offence under Section 384 read with 34 IPC, which ended in acquittal by order dated 27.11.2003 and in Cr.Nos.86-93 of 2001 and Cr.No.95 of 2003 for the offence under Section 110(e) of Cr.P.C, the petitioner was bound over vide M.C.Nos.10 and 7 of 2003 dated 02.07.2001 and 08.05.2003 for keeping good behaviour for a period of six months respectively. Insofar as the third petitioner is concerned Cr.No.174 and 1998 under Section 307 IPC was registered, which ended in acquittal on 11.12.2002; and Cr.No.175 of 1998 under Section 325 IPC was compromised in Lok Adalat on 01.09.2001; Cr.No.130 of 2000 under Section 384 IPC ended in acquittal on 27.11.2003 and in Cr.No.104 of 2003 under Section 110(e) Cr.P.C. the third petitioner was bound over for keeping good behaviour for a period of six months vide M.C.No.8 of 2003 dated 16.05.2003 by the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Jangareddygudem. Thus, it is stated that though as on today no cases are pending against the petitioner having regard to the fact that they are habitual offenders habituated to commit or attempt to or abut an offence involving breach of peace and their involvement in various offence, the rowdy sheets were opened against them under the Police Standing Order 742 and the same are being reviewed and continued from time to time. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that merely because the cases have been registered and petitioners were bound over under Section 110(e) of Cr.P.C., it cannot be said that the said cases relate to breach of public peace and order. It is further stated that bound over period in the aforesaid cases for a period of six months is already over, as such, there is no justification on the part of the respondents to continue the rowdy sheets. 5. Under Standing Order 601 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual Part I Volume II the persons bound over under Sections 106, 107, 108 (1) (i) and 110 (e) and (g) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, are classified as rowdies and history sheets should be opened for them with the orders of the SP/DCP and ACP/SDPO. Under Police Standing Order 602 a rowdy sheet can be opened in respect of persons who are bound over under Section 106, 107, 108 and 110 of the Code from the date of registration up to the end of December but after such period also the said rowdy sheet either can be discontinued or continued. The retention period of the rowdy sheet can be continued under Order 602. Under Standing Order 602(2) merely because a suspect/rowdy, having a history sheet, is not figuring as accused in the previous 5 years after the last case in which he was involved, it should not preclude the SP/DCP/CP to continue his history sheet if SP/DCP/CP is of the considered view that his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or one affecting peace and tranquillity in the area or the victims are not coming forward to give complaint against him on account of threat from him. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed to review the case of the petitioners with regard to the rowdy sheets opened and continued against them and pass appropriate orders in accordance with Police Standing Order 602 within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and intimate the decision taken to the petitioners. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J April 24, 2007 DSK