THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 16418 of 2010 Oral order: The petitioner who claims to be a practicing Advocate, states that he was falsely implicated in a criminal case, for the offences punishable under Sections 183 and 263 I.P.C., and that the said case, which was registered as C.C. No. 87 on 1995 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, ended in his acquittal on 14.02.1997. He further states that earlier when the respondents harassed him by calling him to the police station, he filed writ petition in W.P. No. 11527 of 1998, and this Court by order dated 24.04.1998, disposed of the said writ petition directing the respondents not to harass the petitioner and that if any case is registered against the petitioner, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law. Thereafter, when the respondents by opening a rowdy sheet against him, started harassing, he filed writ petition in W.P. No. 20646 of 1998, and this Court by order dated 28.06.2009, disposed of the same, setting aside the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner, and having regard to the fact that the petitioner was involved in one criminal case, granted liberty to the respondents to open rowdy sheet as per Police Standing Order No. 742(b). The petitioner further states that as of now no case is pending against him, and he not being a habitual offender, continuance of rowdy sheet against him is illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking to direct the respondents to close the rowdy sheet opened against him. Respondent No.3, namely the Sub Inspector of Police, Mancherial Police Station, filed counter stating that that the petitioner was involved in three criminal cases, one criminal case in C.C. No. 87 of 1995 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adilabad, ended in acquittal on 14.02.1997; another criminal case in C.C. No. 753 of 1997 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Luxxetipet, ended in compromise on 21.04.2002 while in the third case being M.C. No. 2 of 1998, the petitioner was bound over for good behaviour for a period of one year by the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Luxxetipet. He further stated that the petitioner has shifted his residence from the limits of Mancherial Police Station and is now residing in the limits of Mancherial Police Station, and based on the orders dated 28.10.2000 of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Mancherial, the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner was transferred to Mancherial Police Station, and that it would be continued upto 31.12.2010 as per the orders of the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Mancherial, Adilabad. Though it is contended that the petitioner is disturbing public peace and tranquility in the locality, but it is admitted that as on today no case is registered or is pending investigation or trial against the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for the respondents. As can be seen from the stand taken by the respondents, the petitioner was involved in three cases, and all the three cases ended in acquittal. Though it is contended by the respondents that the petitioner is involved in settlement of land disputes and is kept under surveillance, the fact remains, it is their admitted case in the counter that as of today no case is pending against the petitioner. Merely because a person is involved in more than one offence, it does not mean that he is a habitual offender, and what has to be seen is whether the criminal acts committed by him tend to disturb public peace and tranquility. In B. Satyanarayana Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1], a Division Bench of this Court, held that unless the criminal acts complained of has something to do with the breach of peace, solitary incident, in which a person is involved, itself cannot constitute any basis or ground to classify him as a rowdy sheeter or continue the rowdy sheet against him. In the instant case, as noted above, all the three criminal cases registered against the petitioner ended in acquittal. Though it is contended that the petitioner is engaged in settlement of land disputes and he is kept under surveillance, it is the admitted case of the respondents that as of now no case is pending against the petitioner. When no case is registered or pending against the petitioner, continuance of the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner, cannot be justified. Hence, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to close the rowdy sheet in question opened against the petitioner forthwith. This order, however, will not preclude the respondents from opening rowdy sheet against the petitioner, if it is found that he is involved or is involving in criminal cases, which results in breach of peace in the locality. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 8th September, 2010 KSR [1] 2004 (1) ALD (Crl.) 387 (AP)