IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.31083 of 2014 BETWEEN Sayeed Bin Ahmed Khalifa and two others.
AND ... PETITIONERS The Government of Telangana, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioners: MR. M. SALEEM Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Petitioners question the continuation of rowdy sheet opened against them and seek a direction to quash the said rowdy sheet.
2. Petitioners state that they are law abiding citizens. However, they were implicated in a criminal case in Cr.No.167 of 2009 on the file of the Falaknuma Police Station, which was later tried as S.C.No.523 of 2010 on the file of the XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The said case, however, ended in acquittal on 18.07.2013 but in spite of that the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioners, on registration of the said crime, is continued and extended from time to time and stands extended till 31.12.2014. Petitioners also state that there is no justification either for opening or continuing of rowdy sheet and hence, the same is sought to be quashed.
3. Counter affidavit is filed by the fourth respondent stating that the petitioners were involved in a sensational murder case in Cr.No.167 of 2009, as aforesaid, but the petitioners were tried in S.C.No.523 of 2010 and acquitted on 18.07.2013. According to the respondents, therefore, the acquittal is only on technical ground, as no witnesses came forward to depose against the petitioners. It is further stated that on the point of jurisdiction of police station, the rowdy sheet, which was opened against the petitioners on 15.09.2009 and 28.07.2009 on the file of the Chandrayanagutta Police Station is transferred to Neredmet Police Station, Cyberabad on 08.06.2011 and is renewed from time to time and is in force till 31.12.2014. It is, however, clearly stated in para 4, as under:
“4. It is respectfully submitted that at present no fresh cases are pending or registered against the petitioners on the file of Neredmet Police Station. However, due to the involvement of the petitioners in the above murder case, no one has come forward to the police station to lodge any complaints against them.”
The continuation of rowdy sheet is, therefore, justified on the ground that the petitioners are energetic young persons and the closure of rowdy sheet would result in their continuing with the criminal activities and involvement in offences.
4. Evidently, the petitioners were found involved in only one crime and whatever the reasons, they obtained a clear and fair acquittal in the said case. It is also admitted that there are no fresh cases pending or registered against the petitioners on the file of the Neredmet Police Station where the rowdy sheet is being continued. Apparently, the involvement of the petitioners in the said murder case was the only reason for opening the rowdy sheet and once the said criminal case ended in acquittal of the petitioners, I do not see any justification for continuation of the rowdy sheet, particularly, in view of the admitted position that the petitioners are 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 one case registered, there is no case registered against the petitioners, according to the respondents. Hence, it cannot be said the petitioners are habitual offenders. Thus, even assuming that there was any justification for opening of the rowdy sheet its continuation after the acquittal of petitioners in the criminal case and the subsequent record of the petitioners showing no involvement in any criminal offence, clearly establishes that the petitioners are entitled to quashing of the rowdy sheet.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the rowdy sheet, as aforesaid, opened and continued against the petitioners shall, therefore, stand quashed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 11, 2014 DSK