HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.30629 of 2010 Date: January 18, 2011 Between: Shaik Subedar, S/o.Mohamad Kasim, Aged about 42 years, Occ: employee in Bapatla Engineering College, R/o.Islampet, Bapatla Town, Guntur District … Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Hyderabad and others … Respondents Order: This writ petition is filed seeking mandamus declaring the action of respondents 2 to 5 herein, opening and maintaining rowdy sheet against the petitioner, in Bapatla Police Station, Guntur District, as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioner that based on a complaint made by one Smt. Kurapathi Madhavi, W/o. Srinivas Rao on 26-08-2010, a case in Cr.No.143/2010 was registered against him for the offences under Sections 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 on the file of Bapatla Town Police Station. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that, again, based on the instigation of Sri Srinivasa Rao, who is the husband of the earlier complainant; another case is registered against him in Cr.No.187/2010 for the offence under Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Based on the same, a rowdy sheet was opened against the petitioner and the respondents-Police are calling him to the police station. It is stated that such opening of rowdy sheet against the petitioner is only politically-motivated and is contrary to the A.P. Police Standing Orders. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed by the fifth respondent, Sub-Inspector of Police, Bapatla Town Police Station, Guntur District. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner is a rowdy element and is involved in criminal cases. A reference is made to Cr.No.143/2010 registered under Sections 506 and 509 IPC and Section 66(A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. It is stated that in connection with the said crime, the petitioner was arrested on 28-08-2010, remanded to judicial custody and subsequently enlarged on bail. It is further stated that as he became hazardous towards women in the town, a suo motu case was registered against him vide Cr.No.187/2010 under Section 110 Cr.P.C., and a report was filed before the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Baptla, which is numbered as M.C.No.27/2010 on 12-11-2010. The counter-affidavit further states that the petitioner is young and energetic and is in the habit of teasing women and passing indecent remarks against them and frightened of him, no one approached the police station and lodged a complaint; thus it has become incumbent on the part of the Police to open a rowdy sheet against him and accordingly a rowdy sheet was opened against him on 22-11- 2010 in accordance with standing order 601(D) of the A.P. Police Standing Orders. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondents. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that, earlier a case was registered against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000; again in Cr.No.187 of 2010, he is shown as L.W.1, in which report is filed before the Mandal Executive Magistrate. It is submitted that as both the cases pertain only to one incident, the petitioner cannot be termed as ‘habitual offender’ so as to open a rowdy sheet against him. On the other hand, it is submitted by learned Government Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents that as much as petitioner is in the habit of teasing women and is continuing such activities, two cases were registered against him; based on the same, a rowdy sheet was opened against him in accordance with the A.P. Police Standing Orders. As per Standing Order 602 of the A.P. Police Standing Orders, certain categories of persons are classified as rowdies against whom rowdy sheets can be opened under Form 80. In this case, it is to be noticed that under Section 602-1(B), persons bound over under Sections 106, 107, 108(i) and 110(e) and (g) of Criminal Procedure Code are also classified as rowdies. Although it is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that Cr.No.187 of 2010 which is registered against the petitioner is also based on same incidents which are subject-matter of Cr.No.143 of 2010, the validity of registration of crime in Cr.No.187 of 2010 cannot be gone into in this writ petition. A perusal of the report filed before the Mandal Executive Magistrate by the Police would make it clear that there is an allegation against the petitioner of accosting the complainant in Cr.No.143 of 2010. Further, the said report also indicates that the petitioner has been sending objectionable messages to the complainant and also indulging in objectionable talk with her over mobile phone. In any event, in view of registration of two crimes against the petitioner for his repeated acts of misdemeanor, respondents-Police are justified in opening a rowdy sheet against him in view of the provisions under A.P. Police Standing Orders. Hence, I do not find any valid ground to grant relief prayed for. Writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) January 18, 2011 MRR