IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19515 of 2001 Between: Mohd.Saleem @ Munna S/o Mohd. Hameed R/o H.No.9-8-413, Bada Bazaar, Golconda, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Commissioner of Police Hyderabad Purani Haveli, Hyderabad. 2 Inspector of Police, Task Force, Begumpet, Hyderabad. 3 Inspector of police, P.S., Golconda, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to pass an order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents No.1 to 3 to close the Rowdi Sheet opened by the respondents against the petitioner and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.A.BARI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.19515 of 2001 ORDER: The petitioner is a resident of Badabazar area of Golconda, Hyderabad. He was shown as an accused in S.C. No.366 of 1991 in the court of the IV Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad for offences under Sections 148, 153-A, 323 and 307 IPC. On noticing that the acts of the petitioner are prejudicial to the public peace and tranquility, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Asif Nagar Division, Hyderabad, opened a rowdy sheet against the petitioner in exercise of power under the A.P. Police Manual Standing Order No.742. Such step was taken against accused Nos.2 and 6 also. The petitioner states that himself and other accused in S.C.No.366 of 1991 were acquitted way back on 23.6.1994 and the rowdy sheet opened against other accused were closed. His grievance is that though he is not involved in any criminal case or activity, rowdy sheet against him is being continued. The Inspector of Police, Golconda Police Station filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that rowdy sheet against the petitioner was opened on account of involvement of the petitioner as accused in S.C.No.366 of 1991. It is stated that the petitioner had thereafter gone to Saudi Arabia for livelihood. It is admitted that no anti social activities are noticed in respect of the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home. Opening rowdy sheet against an individual would bring a stigma vis-a- vis his social life. Such a step can be resorted to only when adequate material in the form of involvement in criminal cases or anti social activities exist. Time and again this court held that the mere fact that an individual is shown as accused in one or two cases cannot constitute the basis for opening a rowdy sheet. In the instant case, the sole basis for opening rowdy sheet against the petitioner was that he figured as accused in S.C.No.366 of 1991. He was acquitted way back in the year 1994. It is highly doubtful whether the rowdy sheet could have been opened against the petitioner on the basis of such solitary incident. Whatever have been the justifications in opening the rowdy sheet on such ground, the matter should have been reviewed once the petitioner was acquitted. Even according to the respondents, no anti-social activities are noticed in respect of the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and it is directed that the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 21-11-2008 Stp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MN}