IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.32537 of 2014 BETWEEN Sadiq Ali.
... PETITIONER AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner: MR. ZAKIR ALI DANISH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Petitioner questions the continuation of rowdy sheet opened against him and seeks a direction to quash the said rowdy sheet.
2. Petitioner states that he was falsely implicated in criminal cases viz. Cr.No.172 of 2007 registered under Sections 323 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal code and Section 25(1)(b) of the Indian Arms Act and another Cr.No.598 of 2007 registered under Section 324 IPC both on the file of S.R.
Nagar Police Station. Petitioner, further, states that both the aforesaid cases ended in acquittal vide judgment dated 13.11.2013 and 25.04.2013 respectively. However, the rowdy sheet is continued against the petitioner, though no cases are registered against him since 2007.
3. Counter affidavit is filed by the third respondent confirming that both the said criminal cases, referred to above, are already disposed of. While Cr.No.172 of 2007, which was converted into C.C.No.905 of 2008, resulted in acquittal of the petitioner on 29.11.2013 whereas Cr.No.598 of 2007 ended in compromise before the Hon’ble Lok Adalat on 23.04.2013. It is, however, clearly stated in para 4, as under:
“4. It is respectfully submitted that at present no cases are pending against the petitioner. I humbly submit that there is reliable information that the petitioner is indulging in unlawful activities but due to fear of the petitioner no one has come forward to the police station to lodge any complaint.”
It is, further, stated that in order to curb the unlawful activities of the petitioner the rowdy sheet is continued.
4. Evidently, the petitioner was found involved in two crimes and whatever the reasons, he obtained a clear and fair acquittal in the said cases. It is also admitted that there are no fresh cases pending or registered against the petitioner on the file of the S.R. Nagar Police Station where the rowdy sheet is being continued. Apparently, the involvement of the petitioner in the said cases in 2007 was the only reason for opening the rowdy sheet and once the said criminal cases ended in acquittal of the petitioner, I do not see any justification for continuation of the rowdy sheet, particularly, in view of the admitted position that the petitioner is not found involved in any further criminal case. More importantly, for opening or continuation of a rowdy sheet, the respondents must establish that the person against whom the rowdy sheet is opened is a habitual offender. Thus, except the aforesaid two cases registered, there is no fresh case registered and pending against the petitioner since 2007, according to the respondents. Hence, it cannot be said the petitioner is habitual offender. Thus, even assuming that there was any justification for opening of the rowdy sheet, its continuation after the acquittal of petitioner in the criminal cases and the subsequent record of the petitioner showing no involvement in any criminal offence, clearly establishes that the petitioner is entitled to quashing of the rowdy sheet.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the rowdy sheet, as aforesaid, opened and continued against the petitioner shall, therefore, stand quashed. However, if the petitioner is found involved in any unlawful activity, the respondents are at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 15, 2014 DSK