SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(AP) 196

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI 
HARINATH N., J.
Moka Siva Ramakrishna & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of A.P. & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition Nos.30782 and 30849 of 2024
Decided On : 10-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Prathiwada Varun Kumar

The continuation of history sheets against acquitted individuals without pending cases infringes upon their fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution.

Headnote:

(A) Constitution of India - Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 - Police Standing Orders - Continuation of history sheet against petitioners despite acquittal in all cases - Petitioners challenged the inaction of respondents in closing the history sheet, claiming it infringes their fundamental rights and amounts to illegal surveillance. (Paras 5, 9, 15)

(B) Fundamental Rights - Right to live with dignity and privacy - The court held that continued surveillance without justification infringes upon the fundamental rights of the petitioners, emphasizing that such actions must be reasonable and lawful. (Paras 15, 16)

(C) Judicial Review - The court examined the scope of judicial review concerning the reasonableness and arbitrariness of maintaining history sheets, concluding that the Police Standing Orders do not provide unfettered authority to continue such sheets. (Paras 9, 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners were acquitted in multiple criminal cases, yet history sheets were maintained against them, leading to claims of infringement of rights.

Findings of Court:
The court found the continuation of history sheets unjustified and ordered their closure, recognizing the infringement of fundamental rights.

Issues: The main issues were whether the continued surveillance infringes fundamental rights and the scope of judicial review regarding history sheets.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the continuation of history sheets without pending cases is arbitrary and violates Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution.

Result: Writ petitions allowed; history sheets ordered to be closed.

ORDER :

1. The petitioners are challenging the in-action on part of the respondents in closing the suspect sheet which was opened vide proceedings No.C.No.003/SDPO-A/2013, Dated 07.01.2013 and C.No.27/SDPO-A/2016, dated 19.05.2016 respectively.

2. The petitioner in WP.No.30782 of 2024 was shown as A.1 in CC.No.164 of 2011, A.2 in CC.No.560 of 2011 and A.3 in CC.No.310 of 2012 and the petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dated 17.04.2015, 12.01.2015 and 16.12.2014 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kothapeta.

3. The petitioner in WP.No.30849 of 2024 was arraigned as Accused No.1 in CC.No.196 of 2016 and Accused No.3 in CC.No.17.11.2017 and the petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dated 29.07.2017, 17.11.2017 Accused No.7 in SC.No.407 of 2017 and acquitted vide judgment dated 10.07.2019 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kothapeta.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents have not closed the suspect sheet though there is no other case pending against the petitioners and the only case which was registered against the petitioners ended up in acquittal.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that continuation of history sheet against the petitioners is also a social sigma on the petitioners. It is also submitted that continuation of the history sheet against the petitioners though there is no case pending against the petitioners amounts to interfering with the fundamental rights of the petitioners i.e., right to live with dignity and the right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d).

6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the respondents submits that a counter is filed and that the Police Standing Orders 602(2) clearly mentioned that nothing precludes the SP/DCP/CP from continuing a history sheet on the sole ground that the history sheeter is not figuring as an accused in the previous five years. It would depend upon the nature of the activities of the history sheeter for continuing the suspect sheet to enable peace and tranquility in the society.

7. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the state does not dispute that there are no cases pending against the petitioners; however submits that the petitioners activities would require continuous surveillance for the police to maintain the law and order in the state.

8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the state and perused the material on record.

9. The following questions would fall for consideration of these writ petitions ;

I. Whether the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(d) of a Citizen is infringed upon on account of continued surveillance under the guise of opening and continuing history sheet ?

II. The scope of judicial review of history sheet / rowdy sheet on the touchstone of reasonableness, arbitrariness and non-application of mind ?

10. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are not accused and are not facing trial in any matters. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners are not convicted of any offence(s).

11. The stand taken by the respondents, that the Police Standing Orders would empower the respondents to open history sheets/rowdy sheets in order to maintain law and order is not a unfettered right. The Police Standing Orders do not have statutory force. The standing orders are only administrative instructions. It is also not in dispute that the Police Standing Orders which are issued under the Police Act would have statutory force.

12. It is pertinent to refer to Chapter 31 of the A.P. Police Code which contains 24 Standing Orders. They deal with the Station Crime history. Standing Orders 733 to 741 and Standing Order 749 deal with History sheets. Standing Order 742 deals with rowdy sheets. Standing Orders 733 to 737 relating to history sheets reads as follows :

"S.O. 733. Part V-History Sheets:- Part V consists of History Sheet (Form 87) of persons resident permanently or temporarily in the station

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top