IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.22191 of 2006 Between: Kanuganti Shekar. … Petitioner And The Superintendent of Police, Warangal, Warangal District and two others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri A.Prabhakar Rao Counsel for respondents: AGP for Home. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in opening and continuing rowdy sheet against the petitioner as unconstitutional, being violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and arbitrary. Heard Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Hanamkonda Police Station, it is mentioned that in Cr.No.152 of 2003, registered for the offence under Section 41(1)(a) read with Section 108 Cr.P.C., of Kakatiya University Police Station, the petitioner was bound over by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Hasanparthy, for a period of six months to keep good behaviour, vide proceedings dated 8-9-2003; in Crime No.458 of 2003, registered for the offences under Sections 147, 394(B), 324, 323 and 506 read with Section 149 IPC of Hanamkonda Police Station, the case was compromised in the Lok Adalat, Warangal, on 13-11-2003; and in Crime No.386 of 2005, registered for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC, charge-sheet was filed, which was taken on file by the IV Additional Munsif Magistrate, Hanamkonda, as PRC No.95 of 2005 and the same is pending. In his additional affidavit, dated 20-4-2009, the petitioner stated that at present no cases are pending against him. At the hearing, Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the said PRC was committed to the Sessions Court and numbered as SC 565 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Warangal, and that the said Sessions Case ended in acquittal of the petitioner on 11-4-2007. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that since the counter-affidavit was filed in the year 2006, she does not have the information as to whether the above mentioned Sessions Case ended in petitioner’s acquittal and the petitioner was not involved in commission of any further offences. Inasmuch as the petitioner claims that no criminal case is pending against him, I do not find any justification to continue the rowdy sheet, if this statement of the petitioner is found correct. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with the direction to the respondents to close the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner, subject to the verification of the claim of the petitioner that no criminal cases are pending against him. This shall necessarily mean that if any criminal cases are pending, the rowdy sheet need not be closed. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date:08.07.2009 MNR