IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.15442 of 2013 BETWEEN Gaddipati Uma Venkateshwar Rao.
AND ... PETITIONER The Station House Officer, Kushaiguda Police Station, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. P. NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioner questions the continuation of rowdy sheet opened against him. In support of the writ petition, petitioner has stated that he was implicated in two criminal cases but both the cases ended in acquittal and it is stated that he is living a peaceful life and continuation of rowdy sheet would cause violation of his fundamental right as his personal liberty is violated by the surveillance.
3. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the first respondent wherein it is stated that Cr.No.266 of 1999 of Kushaiguda Police Station registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner ended in acquittal in S.C.No.100 of 2001 and similarly, Cr.No.394 of 2011 of Kushaiguda Police Station registered under Section 302 read with 34 IPC against the petitioner also ended in acquittal in S.C.No.154 of 2012 dated 31.08.2012. It is further stated that the rowdy sheet was opened after obtaining requisite permission from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Alwal Division, as the activities of the petitioner were in the nature of maintaining a gang and settling money transactions by threatening innocent public in the vicinity of Kushaiguda Police Station. It is stated that the rowdy sheet was opened against the petitioner on 04.07.2011 on the rolls of Kushaiguda Police Station and it was extended from time to time till 31.12.2013. It is, however, stated that the judgment in S.C.No.154 of 2012 was delivered only on 31.08.2012 and at present, no cases are pending against the petitioner on the file of the Kushaiguda Police Station. However, the continuation of the rowdy sheet is sought to be justified on the ground of involvement of the petitioner in two murder cases, referred to above, which, however, ended in acquittal and nobody is coming forward to lodge any complaint against him.
It is also sought to be justified on the ground that a close watch is necessary so as to avoid repetition of offences by the petitioner.
4. The fact, however, remains that two criminal cases registered against the petitioner ended in acquittal and that there is no case pending against the petitioner in the Kushaiguda Police Station, which is not disputed. Even otherwise out of the aforesaid crimes, one crime was registered in 1999 and another was registered in 2011, therefore, there is no proximity of time between the said crimes. Hence, the habituality, which is essential for opening of a rowdy sheet and continuing the same, is clearly absent. More so, in view of the decisions of this Court in
[1]
PULLA BHASKAR v. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, WARANGAL a n d KAMMA BAPUJI v. STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
[2]
BRAHMASMAUDRAM , the petitioner can neither be treated as a habitual offender nor can be classified as a rowdy in view of the acquittal in the criminal cases. In the circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be allowed.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The rowdy sheet opened and continued against the petitioner shall, accordingly, stand quashed. However, if any further complaint or offence is registered against the petitioner, the respondent police shall be at liberty to investigate the same in accordance with law. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 25, 2014 DSK
[1] 1999 (5) ALD 155
[2] 1997 (6) ALD 583