Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI
U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.
Yerramseti Venugopal Rao - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition Nos.17667, 17668, 18301 & 18305 of 2019 COMMON
Decided On : 12-05-2020
Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 342, 364-A, 324 & 506 r/w 34 – Seeking for writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents 2 & 3 in opening rowdy sheets against them (vide H.S.Nos.837, 838, 839 and 840) as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Order 601 of the A.P. Police Manual and for a consequential direction to close the rowdy sheets – Held, there is every chance that he may gain over the witnesses and secondly, due to fear of the petitioners no one has turned up to the police station to lodge any fresh complaints. It must be said that first ground is not envisaged in Order 602. Even otherwise if the petitioners made any attempt to win over the witnesses in Cr.No.304/2019, the concerned police can report to the Court where the case is pending for cancellation of the bail of the petitioners or for taking other suitable action. The second ground is concerned, except alleging that no victim has turned up to the police station to lodge any fresh complaints for fear of petitioners, no plausible material is placed before the Court in that regard. It is incomprehensible as to how the respondent police came to know that the petitioners committed some other offences when none of the victims came forward to the police station to lodge fresh complaints. Thus, both the grounds shown are not sustainable in the eye of law - Writ petitions are disposed
Facts of the Case;
Petitioners were arrayed as accused for the offences under Sections 342, 364-A, 324 & 506 r/w 34 IPC, on the allegation that the petitioners and some others approached the husband of de facto complainant on 26.04.2019 and kidnapped him from his house and wrongfully confined him. During the course of investigation, the offence under Section 307 IPC was also added against them. The petitioners have been contending that a false case has been foisted against them
Finding of the Court:
There is every chance that he may gain over the witnesses and secondly, due to fear of the petitioners no one has turned up to the police station to lodge any fresh complaints. It must be said that first ground is not envisaged in Order 602. Even otherwise if the petitioners made any attempt to win over the witnesses in Cr.No.304/2019, the concerned police can report to the Court where the case is pending for cancellation of the bail of the petitioners or for taking other suitable action. The second ground is concerned, except alleging that no victim has turned up to the police station to lodge any fresh complaints for fear of petitioners, no plausible material is placed before the Court in that regard. It is incomprehensible as to how the respondent police came to know that the petitioners committed some other offences when none of the victims came forward to the police station to lodge fresh complaints. Thus, both the grounds shown are not sustainable in the eye of law.
Result: Writ petitions are disposed
ORDER :
The petitioners in W.P.No.17667/2019, 17668/2019, 18301/2019 & 18305/2019 seek for writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents 2 & 3 in opening rowdy sheets against them (vide H.S.Nos.837, 838, 839 and 840) as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Order 601 of the A.P. Police Manual and for a consequential direction to close the rowdy sheets.
2. The petitioners’ case is thus:
(a) The petitioner in W.P.No.17667/2019 is an Ex-Sarpanch of Gorantla Village, Guntur District. The petitioner in W.P.No.17668/2019 is the son of petitioner in W.P.No.17667/2019. He completed his Master of Science in Analytical Chemistry from Governors State University, Illinois, USA in the year 2008 and looking after the family business of his father.
(b) Due to political vendetta, their opponents have implicated the petitioners in some false criminal cases. In Cr.No.304/2019 of Nallapadu P.S. the petitioners were arrayed as accused for the offences under Sections 342, 364-A, 324 & 506 r/w 34 IPC, on the allegation that the petitioners and some others approached the husband of de facto complainant on 26.04.2019 and kidnapped him from his house and wrongfully confined him. During the course of investigation, the offence under Section 307 IPC was also added against them. The petitioners have been contending that a false case has been foisted against them. However, they cooperated with the Investigating Agency and subsequently charge sheet was filed before the learned Special Mobile Magistrate, Guntur and the same is pending.
(c) While so, the petitioner in W.P.No.17667/2019 was implicated in another case also. Cr.No.688/2018 was registered by the police of Nallapadu P.S. against him and others for the offences under Sections 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Though the petitioner cooperated with the Investigating Agency, a false case was foisted against him and charge sheet was filed before the learned Special Mobile Magistrate, Guntur and the same is pending.
(d) While the above case is pending, to their surprise and chagrin, respondent No.2 opened rowdy sheet against the petitioners. It is alleged that the petitioner in W.P.No.17667/2019 was involved in 16 different crimes. It is submitted that except Cr.No.688/2018 and Cr.No.304/2019 no other crimes are pending as on today. All the other cases were either ended in acquittal or closed. Hence, under Order 601 of the A.P. Police Manual, the 2nd respondent is not legally justified to open rowdy sheet against the petitioners as they are not habitual offenders as per the said order.
(e) The petitioner in W.P.No.18301/2019 is a resident of Gorantla, Guntur, and has passed intermediate and due to poor financial conditions of his family he discontinued his studies and currently employed in the office of M/s. Shapoorji & Pallonji, a construction company engaged with the works in the capital area of Amaravati. He was falsely implicated in Cr.No.304/2019 along with other accused. He is arrayed as A7. Initially in the complaint and FIR he was not shown as accused, but later he was added. When the said matter is pending, respondent No.2 opened a rowdy sheet against him (H.S.No.839) though he was involved in only one crime.
(f) The petitioner in W.P.No.18305/2019 is the resident of Gorantla Village and he is eking out livelihood by plying auto in Gorantla, Guntur. He was falsely implicated in Cr.No.304/2019 and arrayed as A8. Initially he was not shown as accused in the complaint and FIR, but was added subsequently. While the matter was pending 2nd respondent opened a rowdy sheet against him (H.S.No.840) though he is involved in a single crime.
Hence, the writ petitions.
3. The 2nd respondent filed counters and opposed both the writ petitions inter alia contending thus:
(a) The petitioner in W.P.No.1766
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
