IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 5347 of 2009 Between: Arava Ravi Kiran S/o. Prabhakar Rao R/o. Sai Baba Nagar, Mandaadi Cheruve Colony, Musunoor Village, Kavali Rural Mandal, Potti Sri Ramulu, Nellore Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Police Sri Potti Sri Ramulu Nellore Dist., Nellore. 2 The Station House Officer Kavali Rural P.S. Kavali, Sri Potti Sri Ramulu, Nellore Dist. ....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 Writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in continuing the petitioner's name in Rowdy / Suspect sheet, as illegal, arbitrary and violative Standing Order 742 apart from violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Art. 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and Consequently direct the respondent to forthwith remove the name of petitioner from Rowdy / Suspect sheet. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA 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 respondents in continuing the petitioner's name in Rowdy / Suspect sheet, as illegal, arbitrary and violative 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 respondent to forthwith remove the name of petitioner from Rowdy / Suspect sheet. The petitioner claims to be a resident of Mulapeta, Nellore, within the limits of Nellore one Town Police Station. It is his case that he was implicated in Crime No.124 of 1998 on the file of one town P.S.Nellore and the same was numbered as S.C.No.128 of 99 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Nellore basing on which a rowdy sheet was opened against him and thereafter, he shifted his residence to Musunuru Village, within the limits of Kavali Rural P.S. Therefore, the rowdy sheet opened against him was transferred to the said police station. Thereafter he was not involved in any crime and no case was registered against him and S.C.No.128 of 1999 was also ended in acquittal. His grievance is that even though he made several representations to the respondents to remove his name from the rowdy/suspect sheet list, so far there is no response from the authorities and hence he filed this writ petition. On the earlier occasion, when the writ petition was taken up, the learned Government Pleader for Home took time to obtain instructions and today he submits that the petitioner is moving on real estate business in Kavali Mandal and threatening the public with dire consequences with regard to the said business. It is also stated that the petitioner is moving with political parties and is creating nuisance. A case is Cr.No.29 of 2009 under Section 110(e) Cr.P.C. was registered on the file of Kavali Rural Police Station on 16.3.2009 against the petitioner herein and in that regard, he was bound over by the Mandal Executive Magistrate at Kavali vide MC No.9 of 2009 and the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner is continued and the same stands extended upto 31.12.2009. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home for the respondents. Though the respondents contend that it came to their notice that the petitioner is moving with political parties and is creating nuisance and is threatening the public with dire consequences in regard to his real estate business, the admitted fact remains that only one case, i.e. Crime No. 29 of 2009 under Section 110(e) Cr.P.C. was registered against the petitioner on 16.3.2009 and he was bound over by the Executive Magistrate at Kavali vide MC No.9 of 2009. 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. That apart, 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, the petitioner is involved only in one case, referred to above, and he was bound over by the Executive Magistrate. Except that case, he is said to be 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 continue the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner in the year 1998. 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. 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. Dated 31.3.2009 msv [1] 2004 (1) ALD (Crl.) 387 (AP)