IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

WRIT PETITION No.38541 of 2018

DATED: 05.12.2025

Between:

Mandal Radhakrishna Yadav. … Petitioner

AND

The Station House Officer,

Malkajgiri Police Station,

Rachakonda Commissionerate,

Ranga Reddy & 4 Others.

… Respondents

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of

India seeking the following relief/s:-

“to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in opening the Rowdy Sheet against the petitioner in the 1st respondent police station even though the petitioner is not the habitual offender involving in breach of public peace and tranquility as prescribed under Police Standing Order No.601 as arbitrary, illegal, violation of Article 22 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to close the Rowdy Sheet pending against the petitioner in the 1st respondent police station

forthwith in the interest of justice.…”

2. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

3. Heard Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 5.

4.1. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that the petitioner was involved in two criminal cases, Crime No.51 of 2016 and Crime No.506 of 2018, which culminated in C.C. No.22 of 2018 and C.C. No.357 of 2019, respectively, on the file of the learned XVII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri. It is submitted that C.C. No.22 of 2018 was disposed of through compounding of offences based on an amicable settlement before the Lok Adalat on 22.03.2019, while C.C. No.357 of 2019 resulted in acquittal by judgment dated 27.06.2022.

4.2. However, learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that, considering the petitioner’s past conduct, a rowdy sheet was opened and continues to be maintained against him. It is fairly admitted that after the year 2018, no new crimes have been registered against the petitioner. Accordingly, it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.

5. I have perused the material available on record.

6. Even as per the submissions of the respondent police authorities, no criminal cases have been registered against the petitioner after the year 2018. Apart from the general assertion that the petitioner’s conduct is allegedly prejudicial to public peace and tranquility, no verifiable or substantive material has been placed before this Court to justify the continued maintenance of the rowdy sheet.

7. It is a well-settled legal position that the mere registration of a criminal case in the distant past, without subsequent involvement in any cognizable offence or any material indicating continued propensity to disturb public order, cannot be a valid ground for continuation of a rowdy sheet. Preventive measures such as maintenance of history sheets and rowdy sheets are permissible only when supported by tangible and contemporaneous material demonstrating a likelihood of disturbance to public peace and order.

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malak Singh v. State of Punjab and Haryana, (1981) 1 SCC 420, has held that while the police may maintain surveillance over habitual offenders in the interest of public safety, such surveillance must be reasonable, non-intrusive, and strictly in accordance with law. Any arbitrary or prolonged continuation of surveillance or maintenance of a rowdy sheet amounts to infringement of the right to privacy, dignity, and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

9. Similarly, this Court, in Shaik Mahaboob Basha v. State of A.P., (2015) 3 ALD 455, has categorically held that if a person has not been involved in any criminal activity for a period of three years, the rowdy sheet must be closed. The Court also emphasized that the police are required to review every rowdy sheet periodically at least once in six months as mandated under Standing Order 601-A of the