B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner who claims to be a businessman hailing from a respectable family with good background was arrested in the year 1990 during the communal riots under Sections 148,153-A, 323 and 307 IPC r/w Sec. 1491. P. C. The petitioner was enlarged on bail and thereafter he was acquitted of all the charges levelled against him under those sections after a full trial by the learned metropolitan Sessions Judge, City Criminal Court, Hyderabad. The petitioner submits that even after the acquittal of the above cases, the Police of Golconda p. S. became more hostile and started harassing him by calling him to the Police station very frequently disturbing his peace and domestic tranquillity. Later, security proceedings under Section 110 Cr. PC on the allegation that the petitioner had committed breach of peace were initiated against the petitioner, but however, he was discharged of the same.

( 2 ) THE petitioner submits that there are no other cases pending against him and both of them have ended in his favour. The petitioner states that he is not at all habituated to commit or attempt to commit or to abet offences involving breach of peace and in spite of the same, the respondents have opened rowdy-sheet in exercise of their power under Police Standing Order no. 742. The Police very frequently, during odd hours of every day, started visiting his home and harassing him and his family members. The petitioner is put to mental agony, despair and frustration. The petitioner submits that there are absolutely no circumstances warranting to open rowdy-sheet against him. The requirements under Police Standing Order No. 742 are not at all complied with. Therefore, the action of the respondents in opening the rowdy-sheet against the petitioner is illegal and ultra vires. The petitioner complains of regular and continuous harassment by the Police without any justification.

( 3 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed by the Station House Officer, Golconda police Station, inter alia, it is stated that the petitioner is very active, communal rowdy-sheeter since 1990. During communal riots in the year 1990 the petitioner and his friends have assembled unlawfully and attacked the people belonging to other community mercilessly and therefore a case in Cr. No. 116/1990 under Sections 148, 307, 324 r/w 149, 153-A of IPC and section 3 (2) (ii) of TADA Act, 1985 was registered and the petitioner along with other accused was arrested and sent to judicial custody. It is stated that proceedings under Sections 41 and 110 Cr. PC were initiated against the petitioner on 31-5-1996 in Cr. No. 41/96, as the petitioner was moving in suspicious circumstances near the Polling Booth with an intention to create nuisance and (breach of) public peace during Lok Sabha elections. Yet another case was registered against the petitioner, as he was planning to create communal disturbances during Ganesh festival and a case was registered in cr. No. 94/91 under Section 151 Cr. P. C. It is thus clear that the petitioner is involved and was arrested in connection with three criminal cases, namely: (1) Cr. No. 116/90. under Section 148, 307, 324 r/w 149, 153-A IPC and section 3 (2) (ii) of TADA Act, 1985; (2) Cr. No. 84/91 under Section 151 Cr. P. C and (3) Cr. No. 41/96 under Section 110-E Cr. P. C. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that in view of these cases, Police Standing Order No. 742 of A. P. Police Manual gets attracted and the petitioner is liable to be declared as Rowdy sheeter and therefore, a Rowdy sheet was opened against the petitioner. Therefore, he is kept under surveillance and his movements are to be watched. However, the other allegations in the writ petition against the Police complaining of harassment are denied.

( 4 ) THE question that falls for consideration is as to whether the petitioner could be classified as rowdy and a rowdy-sheet can be opened against him.

( 5 ) STANDING Order 742 of the A. P. Police Standing Orders reads

Click Here to Read the rest of this document