SCC Online Web Edition, Copyright © 2021

Page 1 Friday, March 26, 2021

Printed For: Miran Ahmad, Jamia Millia Islamia
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

2020 SCC OnLine AP 2111

In the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati

(BEFORE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J.)

Donkada Rama Krishna

Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh
Writ Petition No. 177 of 2020
Decided on September 11, 2020
The Order of the Court was delivered by
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J.:— This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus questioning the action of
respondents in opening ‘Rowdy sheets’ and continuation against the petitioners on the
file of the 4th respondent, Chinakudama Police Station, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and
consequential direction to the respondents to close the ‘Rowdy sheets’ henceforth.
2. The 1st petitioner is a resident of Chinakudama Village, Jiyyammavalasa Mandal,
Vizianagaram District, 2nd petitioner is native of Pedamerangi Village, Jiyyammavalasa
Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, both of them belong to BC community and they are
agriculturists by profession. The 1st petitioner's village-Jiyyammavalasa Mandal forms
part of Kurupam Assembly Constituency. At the instance of local MLA, who is the
Hon'ble Deputy Chief Minister, the 4th respondent, addressed a letter to the 3rd
respondent seeking permission to open Rowdy sheets against both the petitioners in
the last week of May, 2019. The 3rd respondent-Assistant Superintendent of Police
mechanically granted permission on 01.06.2019 to open Rowdy sheets against the
petitioners. Accordingly, the 4th respondent opened Rowdy sheets against the
petitioners due to involvement of the petitioners in Crime No. 43 of 2019 for the
offences punishable under Sections 353, 354, 342, 323, 324, 109 r/w.14 of Indian
Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC ST (POA)
Act, 1989 on the ground that the petitioners are the members of unlawful assembly
and prevented the YSR Congress Party candidate on the election day at the Polling
Booth. Therefore, opening of Rowdy sheets basing on the said Crime is illegal and
arbitrary exercise of power by respondent No. 4-Staion House Officer and calling the
petitioners to the police station regularly is nothing but an infringement of
fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and
requested to close the Rowdy sheets opened against the petitioners.
3. The respondents filed counter affidavit denying all the allegations in the petition,
while contending that the Rowdy sheets were opened against the petitioners pursuant
to Memo No. C No. 9/Genl 81/Y. Sec/L&O/2019, dated 06.05.2019 issued by Director
General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Mangalagiri, regarding violation of preventive
section of law, accorded instructions to 2nd respondent. 21455 persons violated
security proceedings by indulging in criminal cases. Hence, the 2nd respondent-
Superintendent of Police was advised to complete the forfeiture proceedings against
22 persons and also taken action against them by opening Rowdy sheets. As per the
instructions pursuant to Memo No. C No. 15/D1/DCRB/VZM/2019 of Superintendent of
Police, Vizianagaram, dated 27.05.2019 due to involvement of the petitioners in Crime
No. 43 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 3(i)(r)(s), 3(2) V A SC/ST
POA Act, and Sections 353, 354, 332, 342, 324, 109, r/w 149 IPC on the file of the 4th
respondent, Rowdy sheets were opened against the petitioners in terms of Standing
Order No. 601 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual. It is also contended that, on
 SCC Online Web Edition, Copyright © 2021
Page 2 Friday, March 26, 2021
Printed For: Miran Ahmad, Jamia Millia Islamia
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
account of registration of crime against the petitioners, none of the villagers are
coming forward to lodge complaint against the petitioners, even though they were
involved in grave offences. Hence, Rowdy sheets cannot be closed against the
petitioners.
4. Admittedly, Rowdy sheets are opened against the petitioners pursuant to the
directions issued by the 2nd respondent-Superintendent of Police vide Memo No. C No.
9/Genl 81/Y. Sec/L&O/2019 dated 06.05.2019 as the petitioners are involved in Crime
No. 43 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 354, 342, 323, 324,
109 r/w 149 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC ST (POA) Act, 1989.
At this stage, it is relevant to refer to Andhra Pradesh Police Standing Orders 602(2),
which read as follows:
“602(2) : merely because a suspect/rowdy, having a history sheet, is not
figuring as accused in the previous 5 years after the last case in which he was
involved, it should not preclude the SD/DCP/CP to continue his history sheet if
SP/DCP/CP is of the considered view that his activities are prejudicial to the
maintenance of the public order or one affecting peace and tranquility in the area or
the victims are not coming forward to give complaint against him on account of
threat from him”.
5. According to the Standing Order 602(2) of Andhra Pradesh Police Manual, it
should not preclude the SD/DCP/CP to continue history sheets/rowdy sheets if
SP/DCP/CP is of the considered view that his activities are prejudicial to the
maintenance of the public order or one affecting peace and tranquility in the area or
the victims are not coming forward to give complaint against the petitioners. The
offences punishable under Sections 353, 354, 342, 323, 324, 109 r/w.149 I.P.C and
Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC ST (POA) Act, 1989 in connection with
Crime No. 43 of 2019 are not enumerated in the Standing Orders to continue the
Rowdy Sheets against the petitioners. But, in the counter, it is specifically contended
that the rowdy sheets can be opened against the persons, who, habitually attempting
to commit or abet the commission of offences under Chapters-VIII, XV, XVII and XXII
of I.P.C, persons bound over under Sections 106, 107, 108(1)(i) and 110-E & G of
Criminal Procedure Code, persons who habitually tease women and girls and pass
indecent remarks including offences punishable under Sections 354-A, B, C and 354-D
I.P.C and persons who incite, instigate and participate in communal/caste or political
riots.
6. During hearing, learned counsel for petitioners, Mr. N. Siva Reddy, reiterated the
contentions while drawing attention of the Court to the order of this Court in W.P. No.
5615 of 2019 to substantiate his contentions and requested this Court to order closure
of Rowdy Sheets opened against the petitioners.
7. This Court dealt with the similar issue of habitual offender in W.P. No. 5615 of
2019 and by order dated 28.11.2019, in Beerjepally Venkatesh Babu v. State of A.P1
wherein the word ‘habitual offender’ is analyzed in para-3 of the said judgment. The
crucial expressions used in Standing Order 601 indicate that the person must
habitually commit or attempt to commit or abets the commission of offences involving
breach of peace, disturbance to public order and security. In other words, one must be
a habitual offender or keeps abetting commission of offences, which is a plural of the
expression ‘offence’. Therefore, if the petitioner has involved himself in a single crime,
he cannot be described as a ‘habitual offender’. For one to become a habitual offender,
propensity of repetition of the same conduct should be witnesses. Otherwise,
involvement in a single crime cannot be described as ‘habitual offender’. Therefore, in
the opinion of the court, the first criteria for the petitioner to be described as a ‘rowdy’
as per Standing Order 601 is not satisfied. Similarly, even assuming that the person is
intimidating by threats or use of physical violence or other unlawful means for parting
 SCC Online Web Edition, Copyright © 2021
Page 3 Friday, March 26, 2021
Printed For: Miran Ahmad, Jamia Millia Islamia
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
with movable and immovable properties. Similar issue came up for consideration
before the Court. The word habitual offender is analyzed in catena of judgments.
8. In Dhanji Ram Sharma v. Superintendent of Police2 , the Apex Court held that:
“A habitual offender or a person habitually addicted to crime is one who is a
criminal by habit or by disposition formed by repletion of crimes. Reasonably belief
of the police officer that the suspect is a habitual offender or is a person habitually
addicted to crime is sufficient to justify action under Rules 23.4(3)(b) and 23.9(2).
Mere belief is not sufficient. The belief must be reasonable, it must be based on
reasonable grounds. The suspect may or may not have been convicted of any crime.
Even apart from any conviction, there may be reasonable grounds for believing that
he is a habitual offender.”
9. In other Judgments in Kamma Bapuji v. Station House Officer,
Brahmasamudram and Puttagunta Pasi alias Penta Pasi v. Commissioner of Police,
Vijayawada3 , the Court took similar view and held as follows:
“A Rowdy sheet can be opened against a person classified as a rowdy, if such
person habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of offence
involving a breach of the peace. In plain language a person who habitually commit,
attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences alone can be classified as a
rowdy and rowdy sheet can be opened, provided such offence relates to involving
breach of the peace. If the offence even habitually committed, or attempted to be
committed or abet commission of the offence, but not involving a breach of the
peace, would not enable and authorize the police officer concerned to open rowdy
sheet and classify a person as rowdy. It is in this area, a Police officer has to
consider the material available on record and satisfy himself that commission of
offence habitually by a person has resulted or is likely to result in breach of peace.
The satisfaction is required to be arrived at in an objective manner and on the basis
of the material available on record.
In the instant case, the petitioners are involved only in two cases and these
cases have nothing to do with breach of the peace. It is not the case of the
respondent, that commission of these offences has resulted in breach of the peace
in the village or town, as the case may be. Involvement in two cases itself would
not attract Clause 9a) of S.O.742 and the person/persons cannot be treated as
rowdy and no rowdy sheet can be opened against such person(s). Be that as it may,
even the said two cases registered against the petitioners, admittedly, had not
resulted in any breach of peace. Viewed from any angle, the rowdy sheets opened
against the petitioners are ultra vires to the Police Standing Orders. The action of
the respondents in opening rowdy sheets against the petitioners is illegal and
unconstitutional.
10. In the case of Puttagunta Pasi's case (3rd cited supra), this Court held as
follows:
“From the above, it is clear that rowdy sheets cannot be opened against any
individual in a casual and mechanical manner. Dubbing a person as an habitual
offender and to open a rowdy sheet is not sufficient. On the other hand, due care
and caution shall be taken by the Police before characterizing a person as a rowdy.
The important element that has to be seen in the acts of an offender is whether the
acts so committed by a person will have a tendency to disturb public peace and
tranquility. In Kamma Bapuji's case, the learned single Judge, following the
decisions already rendered by the Supreme Court and this Court as cited above,
held that opening of a rowdy sheet against the petitioner therein viz., Kamma
Bapuji is incorrect. The question involved in this Writ Appeal is almost similar to the
one involved in Kamma Bapuji's case. Apart from this, the appellant himself has
filed an affidavit today swearing that in future he will not give room for any action
 SCC Online Web Edition, Copyright © 2021
Page 4 Friday, March 26, 2021
Printed For: Miran Ahmad, Jamia Millia Islamia
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
to be taken against him for any offences. If the rowdy sheet opened against him is
cancelled, he assures that he would make a decent living without attempting to
disturb public peace and tranquility. The said affidavit is taken on record. From the
facts narrated, it is very difficult to bring the appellant within the definition of a
‘habitual offender’. The mention of his name in the rowdy sheet is of non-
application of mind by the authorities to the relevant provisions viz., Standing
Orders 741 and 742 of the Police Standing Orders. The learned single Judge would
have agreed with the judgment rendered by his Lordship Justice B. Sudershan
Reddy in the case of Kamma Bapuji's case and would have quashed the
proceedings relating to opening of rowdy sheet if the said judgment was placed
before his Lordship. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order of the learned
single Judge (B. Sudershan Reddy, L.) rendered in Kamma Bapuji's case.
11. In the case of Shaik Mahaboob v. Commissioner of Police, this court held as
follows:
“Admittedly the two cases registered against the petitioner have ended in
acquittal. The third reference that a report was received from Special Branch Police
that the petitioner threatened the Managing Editor of Siasat daily ‘for not publishing
in that paper about his organization’ and also threatened to burn the newspaper,
cannot be taken as ‘copiously substantiated’. Something more is required so as to
hold that threat was real which requires preventive measures as either the
complainant himself would have registered a complaint or the police ought to have
taken some initiative on this threat. In the absence of this it is not in accord with
law to treat the said situation as a cogent evidence so as to bring within the ambit
of the person being habitual offender taking that case as a third incident. True
whether commission of an offence or attempt to commit an offence could be taken
as the relevant factor for the purpose of entering the name of a person in a rowdy
sheet within the meaning of S.O.742 but mere assertion does not lead to the
situation that a person attempted to commit an offence.
12. In view of the law declared the Apex Court and High Court of Judicature at
Hyderabad, the petitioners cannot be described as ‘habitual offenders’, as no
material is placed before this Court to conclude that the petitioners repeated similar
offence as described in their Standing Order No. 601 of Andhra Pradesh Police Manual.
In the absence of any material to prove that the petitioners repeated such offences,
continuation of Rowdy Sheets are without any basis and thereby the act of the 4th
respondent is irregular, illegal and it is arbitrary exercise of power conferred on the
police by Standing Order 601 of Andhra Pradesh Police Manual. Hence, opening of
Rowdy sheets against the petitioners is against the law.
13. The main contention of the respondents are follows:
1) The petitioners were arrayed as accused in Crime No. 29 of 2019 under Section
107 of Cr.P.C. of Chinamerangi Police Station vide M.C. No. 31 of 2019 pending
before Mandal Executive Magistrate, Jiyyammavalasa.
2) Petitioners teased and passed indecent remarks towards the complainant in the
present case on hand.
3) Petitioners violated the MCC and involved in Crime No. 43 of 2019 under
Sections 353, 354, 323, 324, 109 read with 149 of I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(r)(s)
and 3(2)(v)(a) of S.Cs and S.Ts. (POA) Act.
4) Petitioners have potential influence the people and may commit further offences
of same type unless a close watch is maintained on the activities of the accused.
14. As the petitioners arrayed as accused in Crime No. 29 of 2019, rowdy sheets
appears to have been opened against the petitioners invoking clause (i)(ii)(iv) and (ix)
of Standing Order 601 of A.P. Police Manual.
15. However, as seen from the material on record, mere registration of crime for the
 SCC Online Web Edition, Copyright © 2021
Page 5 Friday, March 26, 2021
Printed For: Miran Ahmad, Jamia Millia Islamia
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v)(a) of S.Cs and S.Ts. (POA)
Act does not amount to committing offences of communal/caste or political riots It is
only insulting a person belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Therefore,
basing on Clause (ix) of Standing Order 601 of A.P. Police Manual, opening of rowdy
sheets are unsustainable.
16. The other contention of the petitioners is that he is a party to M.C. No. 31 of
2019 pending before the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Jiyyammavalasa, who initiated
proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. The orders passed, if any, under Section 107
of Cr.P.C. will remain in force for a period of six months, and six months period is
already over. Therefore, opening of rowdy sheets against the petitioners invoking
clause (ii) of Standing Order 601 of A.P. Police Manual is an illegality.
17. The respondents contended that the petitioners are habituated to commit or
abet the commission of offences involved breach of peace, disturbance to public order
and security besides offences under chapter VIII, XV, XVII, XVIII and XXII of I.P.C.
But the petitioners cannot be described as habitual offenders in view of the law
declared in the above judgments since the petitioners are not committing the offences
repeatedly.
18. Last ground urged by the respondents for opening of rowdy sheets is that the
petitioners are habituated to tease women and girls and pass indecent remarks
including offences under Sections 354-A, B, C and 354-D of I.P.C. According to the
material available on record, the petitioners involved in Crime No. 43 of 2019
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 353, 354, 323, 324, 109 read
with 149 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v)(a) of S.Cs and S.Ts (POA) Act.
But the petitioners did commit no offence punishable under Section 354-A, B, C and
354-D of I.P.C. Hence, opening of rowdy sheets invoking clause (iv) of Standing Order
601 of A.P. Police Manual is another illegality.
19. No material is placed for continuation of rowdy sheets covered by Second Part
of Clause (2) of Standing Order 602 of Andhra Pradesh Police Manual, which is an
illegality and violative of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of
Constitution of India. Coming to Clause(2) of Standing Order 602 of Andhra Pradesh
Police Manual, there is nothing to show that these petitioners committed breach of
peace and tranquility to attract any other offence which would fall under Sections 108
(1)(i) & 110-E and G of Cr.P.C, except making bald allegations no material is
produced. Further, in the absence of recording satisfaction by SD/DCP/CP about
involvement of the petitioners in any activities prejudicial to the maintenance of the
public order or one affecting peace and tranquility cannot be sustained.
20. On over all consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the law
declared in the Judgments (referred above), I find that it is a fit case to declare that
the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioners is illegal and arbitrary and liable to be
set aside.
21. In the result, Writ Petition is allowed declaring the action of respondents in
opening Rowdy sheets opened against the petitioners, is illegal and arbitrary.
However, the 4th respondent-Station House Officer is directed to close the rowdy sheet
opened against the petitioners forthwith. No costs.
22. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
———
1 LAWS (APH) 2014 3 87
2 AIR 1966 SC 1766
3 (1998) 3 ALT 55
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/
notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake
 SCC Online Web Edition, Copyright © 2021
Page 6 Friday, March 26, 2021
Printed For: Miran Ahmad, Jamia Millia Islamia
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/
rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The
authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.