IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that the police must have valid reasons, as per the A.P. Police Manual and legal precedents, to maintain a rowdy sheet against an individual, especially when there are no pending criminal cases.

ORDER

C.V.Bhaskar Reddy, J. - This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondents in not deleting his name from the list of rowdy sheet without there being any crime pending against him and in continuing Rowdy Sheet No.19/22-06-2019 of PS Mailardevpally, Cyberabad, inspite of his representation submitted to the respondents on 26.08.2023 to delete his name from the list of rowdy sheet, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and to consequently direct the respondents to close the rowdy sheet opened against him.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was falsely implicated in Crime No.116 of 2017 by the police of Mailardepally Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 365 of IPC and Section 5(j)(ii) read with Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, wherein charge sheet was filed vide S.C.No.1019 of 2017, which ultimately ended in acquittal after elaborate trial on 10.02.2023. However, basing on the alleged offences, the respondents opened rowdy sheet against him. The main grievance of the petitioner is that even though there are no criminal cases pending against him, the respondents with a mala fide intention are continuing the rowdy sheet and due to surveillance, he is facing much inconvenience and hardship to lead a respectable and dignified life in the society.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.4 stating that the petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.116/2017 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 365 of IPC and Section 5(j)(ii) read with Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 on the file of Mailardevpally Police Station, and the same ended in acquittal vide S.C.No.1019 of 2017 before the Hon'ble Fast Track Special Court for Trial and Disposal of Rape and Pocso Act Cases, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar. It is further stated that since the petitioner is an active criminal, in order to keep a close watch on his movements, the then Station House Officer has submitted proposals dated 20.06.2019 requesting the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Rajendranagar Division, Cyberabad, to accord permission to open rowdy sheet against the petitioner and as per the permission accorded by the said officer vide proceedings No.19/Rowdy Sheet/ACP-RN/CYB/2019 dated 22.06.2019, rowdy sheet was opened against the petitioner. It is also stated that in view of opening of rowdy sheet and continuation of the same, the petitioner did not commit further offences. It also stated that except continuing the rowdy sheet, the petitioner was not called to police station and his liberty was not infringed in any manner. It is further stated that in view of past conduct of the petitioner and the impending elections, it is necessary to continue the rowdy sheet against the petitioner and as such his representation dated 26.08.2023 was not considered.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as on date, there are no cases pending against the petitioner and therefore, prayed to close the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner. In support of his submission, 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 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.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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; Kamma Bapuji v. Station House Officer, Brahmasamudram, 1997(6) ALD 583. He has further relied on the judgment in Puttagunta Pasi v. Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, 1998(3) ALT 55 (DB), in which, the Division Bench has specific