IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 27083 of 2006 Between: Reddi Maneswara Rao @ Mani S/o Veeraswamy r/o 43-14-18, Opp: Apsara Theater, Mederpet, Rajahmundry ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Superintendet of Police, East Godavari at kakinada. 2 Station House Officer, I Town P.S., Rajahmundry. .....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 a Writ of mandamus declaring the opening and continuance of Rowdy sheet against the petitioner by Respondents as illegal, arbitrary and violative of ARt. 14,21 of Constitution of India and also A.P. Police Standing Orders no. 742 and consequently quash the same and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.S.RAMCHANDRA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : Order: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of the respondents in opening and continuing the rowdy sheet opened against him as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also A.P.Police Standing Order No.742 and consequently to quash the same. The petitioner claims to be a resident of Mederpet in Rajahmundry Town, which comes within the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent. It is stated that he is a supporter of Telugu Desam Party an due to political rivalry, he was falsely implicated by the respondents in SC No.236 of 1999 and SC No.260 of 2003 and they have opened a rowdy sheet in the year 2004. However, he was acquitted in the said cases. His grievance is that even though, no other criminal case has been registered against him, the police are continuing the rowdy sheet opened against him in the year 2004. In response to the writ allegations, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit. However, since the same is filed long back, this Court on 23.3.2009 directed the respondents to get the latest status report in respect of any case pending against the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the learned Government Pleader for Home has produced before the court the instructions received by him. As per the said instructions, at present, the petitioner is facing trial in a criminal case in Crime No.21 of 2005 under Sections 448 read with 34 IPC & Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act & 7(1)(A)(b) of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1992 of Bommuru P.S. in which the petitioner together with 14 others criminally trespassed into the premises of ONGC Bus Complex, Rajahmundry and caused damage to the public property on account of a bund call given by the Telugu Desam Party and the said case is posted to 28.3.2009 on the file of the VII Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry. Except the said case, no other case is at present registered and pending against the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home for the respondents. Though the respondents contend that due to the fear of the petitioner, no one is coming forward to the police station and lodging complaints against him and that he is indulging in criminal activities and his unbridled movements in the society have caused law and order problems and therefore, to curb such illegal activities of the petitioner, they opened the rowdy sheet, the admitted fact remains that only one case under Sections 448 read with 34 IPC & Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act & 7(1)(A)(b) of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1992 of Bommuru P.S. has been registered against the petitioner. Except this crime, the respondents are not able to say whether there is any other crime registered against the petitioner either within the jurisdiction of respondent No.2-police station or any other police station. 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, the petitioner is involved only in one case, referred to above and the same is coming before the Court on 28.3.2008. Except that case, he is said to have not involved in any case either within the jurisdiction of respondent No.2-police station or any other police station. Since the petitioner is involved only in one case, the same by itself cannot form basis for the respondents to justify continuing of rowdy sheet against the petitioner, and 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.2-police station. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to close the impugned rowdy sheet opened and continued 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.25.3.2009 msv [1] 2004 (1) ALD (Crl.) 387 (AP)