HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 24212 OF 2010 . DATED 28th July, 2011 BETWEEN Kasarla Sreeniva Reddy and anr …Petitioners And The Superintendent of Police, Guntur, Guntur District and ors ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 24212 of 2010 ORDER: Questioning the action of the respondents in not discontinuing the rowdy sheets opened against the petitioners on the file of the fourth respondent-Station House Officer, Machavaram Police Station, Guntur District, the present Writ Petition is filed. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side. Perused the case file. It is the case of the petitioners that they are coolies by profession in Machavaram of Guntur District and their family members are entirely depending on their daily income. It is their complaint that though rowdy sheets opened against some persons involved in criminal cases and acquitted thereafter were discontinued, however the respondents are continuing their names in the list of rowdy sheeters. It is further stated that though no criminal cases are pending against the petitioners, the respondents are continuing the rowdy sheets against them. Fourth respondent-Sub Inspector of Police,Machavaram Police Station, Guntur District filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations of the petitioners. It is stated that the first petitioner was involved in the following cases: 1. Cr.No.49/2004 registered under Section 147,148, 427 r/w 149 IPC ( Acquitted by the Criminal Court on 26.3.2010) 2. Cr.No.50/2004 registered under Sections 147, 148, 307, 302 r/w. 149 IPC and Section 3(ii)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act. (Acquitted by the Court on 3.12.2007) 3. Cr. No. 24/2009 registered under Section 107 Cr.P.C. ( bound over for a period of six months). Second petitioner was involved in the follows cases. 1. Cr.No. 50/2004 registered under Section 147, 148, 307, 302 r/w 149 IPC. ( Acquitted by the Court on 3.12.2007) 2. Cr.No. 24/2009 under Section 107 Cr.P.C.( bound over for a period of six months). It is stated in the counter affidavit that to curb and curtail the unlawful activities of the petitioners in the vicinity of Machavaram Police Station, rowdy sheets were opened on 5.8.2009 and the same are being continued and renewed from time to time and they were lastly extended till 31.12.2010. It is further stated that several complaints are being received in the police station complaining that the petitioners are settling the civil disputes by threatening innocent public and due to fear no one is coming forward to lodge complaints. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that as of now no criminal cases are pending against the petitioners. He asserted that the petitioners are neither habitual offenders nor involved in the cases relating to breach of peace and tranquility. He also pointed out that the respondent authorities without any justification and without there being any periodical review are continuing the rowdy sheets opened against the petitioners. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the judgment of the this Court in Sathiyya Naidu Vs. Superintendent of Police, E.G. District at Kakinada ( 2010 (2) L.S. 383). Per contra, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, while reiterating the counter averments, submitted that the rowdy sheets opened against the petitioners are being continued in public interest. He further submitted that based on the involvement of the petitioners in the above criminal cases and with a view to curb and curtail their unlawful activities, the rowdy sheets have been opened against the petitioners on 5.8.2009 and the same are being renewed from time to time and lastly extended till 31.12.2010. It is argued that except opening the rowdy sheets against the petitioners, the respondents never interfered with their life and liberty at any point of time and never harassed them as alleged. On several occasion, this Court had to deal with cases covered by Police Standing Order 742 which deals with opening of rowdy sheets. As per Police Standing Order 742, rowdy sheets can be opened and continued against persons who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the Commission of, Offences involving a breach of the peace. The expression 'habitually' means 'repeatedly' or 'persistently'. It implies a thread of continuity stringing together similar repetitive acts. Repeated, persistent and similar, but not isolated, individual and dissimilar acts are necessary to justify an inference of habit. A single act or omission cannot therefore be characterised as a habitual act or omission. If the above settled principle is applied to the facts of the present case, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners are not at all habitual offenders so as to open and continue the rowdy sheets against them in as much as after their acquittal from the earlier criminal cases booked against them in the years 2004 and 2009, they are not involved in any other case. Trite to state, unless there is adequate material as regards commission of offence or attempt to commit an offence opening of rowdy sheet against a person and continuing the same is illegal. Even mere suspicion or apprehension would not be a criteria for opening rowdy sheets against a person. In the absence of any conviction recorded in the crimes registered against the petitioners and in the absence of any fresh cases registered against them after 2009, it cannot be said that the petitioners are habitual offenders so as to continue the rowdy sheet opened against them. Though it is stated in the counter affidavit that several complaints are being received against the petitioners stating that they are settling the civil disputes threatening the innocent public, no single reference or details of activities justifying such description have been given therein. Further, it is also evident from the record that there is no review of the rowdy sheets opened against the petitioners after 31.12.2010. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed and the rowdy sheets opened against the petitioners and continued on the file of the fourth respondent are hereby quashed. Needless to observe, this order will not preclude the respondent police to keep surveillance on the activities of the petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------------ -- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 28th July, 2011. Msnro