IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 5194 of 2009 Between: Uppalapati Sri Rama Murthy, s/o. Late U. Suryanarayana, R/o. Mallappadiba, Penugonda Mandal, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, Eluru, West Godavari District. 2 The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Narasapuram, West Godavari District. 3 The Circle Inspector of Police, Penugonda Police Station, Penugonda (P.O. & Mandal), West Godavari District. 4 The Station House Officer, Penugonda Police Station, Penugonda (P.O. & Mandal), West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly Writ of Mandamus and declare the action of Respondents in opening the Rowdy Sheet No. 13, dated 20-11-1993 and continuing the Rowdy Sheet from the year 1993 onwards is highly illegal, arbitrary and void and consequently to direct the Respondents to delete the petitioner's name from the Rowdy Sheet No. 13, dated 20-11-1993 Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.P.RAJU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner to declare the action of the respondents in opening and continuing a rowdy sheet against him as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Standing Order 742 apart from violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Art. 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to forthwith close the rowdy sheet so opened. The case of the petitioner is that there are certain disputes between himself and his father in respect of sharing of immovable property and in that regard, a civil suit is also filed before the Court below. In that regard, his father created lot of troubles to him and also filed a suit and a criminal case through his tenant in the year 1993. The said civil and criminal cases are closed in the year 1996. There are certain other civil disputes between himself and his paternal uncle who foisted a false case against him and the said cases are also closed due to compromise. While so, the respondents came to his house on 9.3.2009 and took him to the office of the Sub-Divisional Revenue Officer, Kovvur, West Godavari District and took two sureties of an amount of Rs.50,000/- each for his release on bail under Section 110 Cr.P.C. and hence he filed this writ petition stating that even though no cases are registered or pending against him, the police are continuing the rowdy sheet opened against him in the year 1993. On the earlier occasion, when the writ petition was taken up, the learned Government Pleader for Home took time to obtain instructions and today a counter affidavit is filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Penugonda Police Station, the 4th respondent herein inter alia stating that the petitioner herein was involved in as many as 12 criminal cases and, therefore, a rowdy sheet was opened against him on 20.11.1993. At present, a case in Cr.no.143 of 2008-09 under Section (71)(e) of the Tanuku Excise Police Station is pending trial and a case in Cr.Nos.17 to 19 under Section 110(e) Cr.P.C. was registered on the file of Penugonda Police Station to keep good behaviour for a period of six months. However, it is admitted that all the cases registered against the petitioner except the excise case have ended in acquittal. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home for the respondents. Admittedly, at present, only one case is registered against the petitioner. A Division Bench of this Court in B. Satyanarayana Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1], considered the question of justifiability of the police in opening rowdy sheet against a person who was involved in only one crime, in the light of the expressions “habitually commit”, “attempt to commit” and “abet the commission of offences”, employed in S.O. 742, and held in paragraphs 15, 18 and 19, as follows: The very expressions “habitually commit”, “attempt to commit” and “abet the commission of offences” indicate the requirement that at least two or more cases have been registered against the person concerned to characterize such person as a person who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences. Unless the acts complaint of are more than one, it cannot be held that the involvement of a person even in a solitary case itself forms the basis for classifying such person as “habitually committing the offences” involving disturbance to the public peace and tranquility. The appellant in the instant case is involved in one criminal case and charge- sheet was filed against him under Sections 324, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The offences alleged against the appellant herein have nothing to do with the breach of peace. That solitary incident, in which the appellant herein is alleged to have involved, itself cannot constitute any basis or ground to classify him as a rowdy sheeter. In the case on hand, as admitted by the respondents, at present only one case is pending against the petitioner. Except that case, he is said to be not involved in any case within the jurisdiction of respondents. Since the petitioner is involved only in one case, the same by itself cannot form basis for the respondents to continue the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner in the year 1993. Therefore, having regard to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in B. Satyanarayana Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, it is appropriate that the respondents should be directed to close the impugned rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner on the file of respondent No.1 police station. Hence, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to close the impugned rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner. This order, however, does not preclude the respondents from opening the rowdy sheet against the petitioner if there is any substantial material to suggest that he is habitually committing or attempting to commit or abetting the commission of offences. No costs. N.V. RAMANA, J. Dt 7.4.2009 msv [1] 2004 (1) ALD (Crl.) 387 (AP)