THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR W.P. No.33992 of 2025

ORDER

Questioning the action of the respondents in opening of rowdy-sheet against the petitioner, as being grossly illegal and contrary to Standing Order No.601 of A.P. Police Manual, petitioner filed the present writ petition with a consequential prayer to direct the respondents to close the rowdy-sheet against the petitioner.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that based on a false complaint lodged against the petitioner, FIR No.631 of 2017 on the file of Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad, was registered and after completion of investigation charge-sheet is filed vide S.C.No.437 of 2021 and the same is pending before the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. Except the aforesaid case, no other case is pending against the petitioner as on today. Since the respondents Police are regularly calling the petitioner to the Police Station and harassing on the alleged ground of rowdy-sheet, petitioner filed the present writ petition.

3. On the other hand, the respondent No.4, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Banjara Hills Division, Hyderabad, filed counter affidavit, inter alia, stating that the petitioner is arrayed as an accused in Crime No.631 of 2017 and after completion of investigation charge sheet has been filed before the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, at Hyderabad vide S.C.No.437 of 2021 and the same is pending. Since there is every possibility of petitioner’s involvement in other cognizable offences and in order to keep surveillance over his activities rowdy-sheet has been opened against the petitioner vide proceedings No.624/OW/ACP-BH/2023 dated 14.11.2023 and as per the A.P. Police Manual Order No.601 as well as Circular No.2172/C13/SCRB/CID/TS/22, dated 22.07.2022 issued by the Director General of Police, the respondent authorities are following due procedure in opening and continuing/renewing the rowdy/suspect/history sheet. It is further submitted that the Police are not visiting the petitioner’s house and not intruding with his privacy.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the material on record and with their consent, this writ petition is disposed of.

5. It is categorical submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that except the aforementioned single case no other case is pending against the petitioner, which has not been disputed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. At this juncture, it is not out of place to refer the order rendered by this Court in the case of Mansoor Shah Khan and others Vs. State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Hyderabad and others, 2021 (4) ALT 36 (TS) wherein it is held that 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 and figuring as an accused in two cases would not be sufficient to characterize a person as a habitual offender. For better appreciation, the relevant paras No.23, 24 and 26 are extracted hereunder.

“23. As stated above, as per Standing Order 601 of the A.P. Police Manual, for opening and maintenance of rowdy sheet, a person against whom the same was issued should habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences involving a breach of peace, disturbance to public order and security. Further, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Narain Singh's case (2 supra), the expression 'habitually' would mean 'repeatedly' or 'persistently' implying a thread of continuity, stringing together similar repetitive acts, and a single act or omission would not characterize an act as 'habitual'. The Hon'ble Apex Court was of the opinion that to qualify as a 'habit', a person must have grown accustomed to leading a life of crime, whereby it would be a force of habit, inherent or latent, in an individual with a criminal instinct, with a criminal dispositio