IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for valid reasons and due care by the police in characterizing individuals as rowdies, as per the Standing Orders of A.P. Police Manual.

ORDER

C.V.Bhaskar Reddy, J. - This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief:

'...to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the Respondent No.4 through his subordinates calling the Petitioner to Police Station time and again under the guise of investigation in misusing their executive powers as illegal, arbitrary, violation of executive powers and Article 14, 21 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure and consequently direct the Respondent Police not to call the Petitioner to Police Station and harass him.

2. The case of the petitioner is that basing on the complaint lodged by one Naidu Prakash, a case in Crime No.345/2021 was registered against him and others for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 193 & 120B IPC and after completion of investigation, the respondent No.4 laid charge sheet and the same was taken cognizance as C.C.No.410 of 2022 on the file of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabadand pending for trial. It is further case of the petitioner that he was also an accused in S.C.No.180 of 2017 on the file of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and the said case ended in acquittal vide judgment dated 29.05.2023. It is also case of the petitioner that except the solitary case in C.C.No.410 of 2022, no other case is pending against him. However, the respondents-police are summoning him to the police station and confining him for hours together stating that rowdy sheet/surveillance sheet is opened against him.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted thatexcept a solitary case, no case is pending against the petitioner and therefore, prayed to close the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the judgment in Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 1963 SC 1295 and Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1984 SC 1334 in which, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that opening of rowdy sheet and continuing the same without any valid reason would not characterize a person that he is habitually involving in commission of offences. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied on the judgments in Sunkara Satyanarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2000(1) ALD (Crl.) 117 (AP); B. Satyanarayana Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2004(1) ALD (Crl.) 387 (AP); Majid Babu v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 1987(2) ALT 904; KammaBapuji v. Station House Officer, Brahmasamudram, 1997(6) ALD 583. He has further relied on the judgment in PuttaguntaPasi v. Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, 1998(3) ALT 55 (DB) in which, the Hon'ble Division Bench has specifically observed that a rowdy sheet could not be opened against an individual in a casual and mechanical manner and due care and caution should be taken by the police before characterizing a person as a rowdy. The learned counsel has placed much reliance on the judgment in YerramsettiVenugopal Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 2020(2) ALD (Crl.) 1048 (AP) in which, the learned Single Judge of High Court of Andhra Pradesh while referring to the Standing Orders of A.P. Police Manual and the principles laid down in the catena of judgments held that history sheet of a rowdy can be continued (i) if the activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or affecting peace and tranquility in the area; ii) the victims are not coming forward to give complaint against him on account of threat from him. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents-police have not followed the Standing Order Nos.601, 602 and 742 of Police Manual for maintaining the rowdy sheet against the petitioner.

4. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents, on written instructions dated 15.11.202