THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 23197 of 2010 Oral order: Questioning the action of the respondents in opening Suspect History Sheet dated 19.09.2007 in the name of the petitioner on the file of II Town Police Station, Khammam, and calling him to the police station frequently, the petitioner filed the present writ petition to declare such action of the respondents as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to quash the Suspect History Sheet. The petitioner claims to be a resident of Raparthy Nagar, Khammam. He states that in the year 2007, he was falsely implicated in a case in Crime No. 203 of 2007 on the file II Town Police Station, Khammam, for the offence under Section 384 I.P.C. alleging that he and one other person had demanded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from one K. Ravinder working as Junior Assistant in Zilla Parishad, in the name of CPI ML, Praja Prathighatana, otherwise they would kill him. While the said crime was under investigation, the petitioner states that the respondents opened a Suspect History Sheet in his name on 19.09.2007. The said crime, which was later numbered as C.C. No. 613 of 2007 on the file of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Khammam, ended in his acquittal by judgment dated 21.05.2009. The petitioner states that except this crime, which ended in his acquittal, there is no other crime registered or is pending against him. He states that after his acquittal, and considering the fact that no case is registered or pending against him, he requested the respondents to close the Suspect History Sheet opened against him, but the respondents, instead of closing the Suspect History Sheet are maintaining the same and calling him to the police station frequently. Hence, he filed the present writ petition praying for the relief as noted in the preliminary paragraph. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that except one crime registered against the petitioner which ended in acquittal, there is no other crime registered against the petitioner or is pending investigation. He submits that to open a rowdy sheet against a person, as per Standing Order No. 742 of the Police Standing Orders, the person must habitually commit or abet the commission of offences involving breach of peace. He submits that the petitioner not being a habitual offender, much less committed or abetted commission of offences involving breach of peace, opening of Suspect History Sheet, much less continuing the same, is not only contrary to Standing Order No. 742 of the Police Standing Orders, but also illegal and arbitrary. Hence, he prayed that the writ petition be allowed and consequently the Suspect History Sheet opened against the petitioner be closed. The learned Government Pleader for Home reiterating the counter averments submitted that though the crime registered against the petitioner ended in his acquittal, but there are number of oral complaints received against the petitioner alleging that he is threatening the public and doing civil settlement, that out of fear of the petitioner, no one is approaching the police to lodge a complaint. That the Suspect History Sheet opened against the petitioner has been renewed up to 31.12.2010, and its continuance is necessary because, there is every possibility of the petitioner indulging in unlawful activities. Hence, he submitted that there is no need to close the Suspect History Sheet opened against the petitioner and prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home for the respondents. Though a case in Crime No. 203 of 2007 on the file II Town Police Station, Khammam, for the offence under Section 384 I.P.C., was registered against the petitioner, later the same having been numbered as C.C. No. 613 of 2007 on the file of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Khammam, ended in acquittal of the petitioner by judgment dated 21.05.2009. Except the said crime, in which the petitioner was acquitted, as on today, there is no other crime registered against the petitioner or is pending investigation. The respondents do not dispute this fact. When no case is registered or pending against the petitioner, the continuance of the Suspect History Sheet by the respondents against the petitioner, cannot be countenanced. The law is well settled that mere involvement of a person in more than one offence, cannot drub him to be a habitual offender, and what has to be seen is whether the criminal acts committed by him tend to disturb public peace and tranquility. I n B. Satyanarayana Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1], a Division Bench of this Court, held that unless the criminal acts complained of has something to do with the breach of peace, solitary incident, in which a person is involved, itself cannot constitute any basis or ground to classify him as a rowdy sheeter or continue the rowdy sheet against him. In view of the above, and considering the fact that except the one crime registered against the petitioner, which ended in acquittal, there is no crime registered or pending investigation against the petitioner, the continuance of Suspect History Sheet opened against the petitioner, cannot be justified and is liable to be set aside. Hence, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to close the Suspect History Sheet in question opened against the petitioner forthwith. This order, however, will not preclude the respondents from opening rowdy sheet against the petitioner, if it is found that he is involved or is involving in criminal cases, which results in breach of peace in the locality. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 26th October, 2010 KSR [1] 2004 (1) ALD (Crl.) 387 (AP)