Maintenance of a rowdy sheet is only permissible against habitual offenders. Continuing such a sheet against a person acquitted in all cases, with no current criminal involvement, is arbitrary and violates constitutional rights to personal liberty.

ORDER:

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:

“….to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in opening and maintaining rowdy sheet against the Petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 19 (1) (e) and 21 of the Constitution of India. Consequently direct the Respondent No.5 to close the rowdy sheet which is been maintain against the Petitioner and pass.…”

2. Heard Sri Mohd Muzaffer Ullah Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in Crime Nos.111 of 2012, 57 of 2012 and 69 of 2014. The above cases were ended in acquittal. In the year 2013, Police Bhavani Nagar, Hyderabad has opened rowdy sheet against the petitioner showing his involvement in the above crimes. Despite the acquittal, the rowdy sheet opened as against the petitioner still continues. The petitioner alleges that the continued existence of this Rowdy Sheet is causing disruption to his daily life, including his professional work, and is resulting in hardship and mental distress for him and his family.

4. It is further submitted that respondent No.5 has been repeatedly summoning the petitioner to the police station, frequently visiting his residence, including late nights. The petitioner emphasizes that he is not involved in any criminal case at present, yet the police conduct is causing continuous harassment and mental agony, interfering with his constitutional rights and daily life. The petitioner, being a law-abiding citizen with dependents, seeks a direction from this Court to close the Rowdy Sheet and restrain the respondents from further harassment, as the Rowdy Sheet was opened without following the guidelines laid down by this Court.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of the official respondents, submits that the petitioner, having been previously involved in three cases, had a Rowdy Sheet opened against him to enable lawful surveillance of his activities.

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that the respondent-authorities neither called the petitioner to the police station nor harassed him on the basis of the rowdy sheet as alleged by the petitioner.

7. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and upon perusing the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the crimes registered against the petitioner were ended in acquittal. It is undisputed that no other criminal case is pending against the petitioner. The Rowdy Sheet was therefore based solely on a solitary allegation. 601, 602, and 742 of the A.P. Police Manual , rowdy sheets can only be maintained against habitual offenders who repeatedly commit offences affecting public order, peace, or security. The petitioner, having not been involved in any criminal case for more than three years, does not qualify as a habitual offender, and therefore, the rowdy sheet maintained against him is unlawful.

8. Maintenance of rowdy sheets is governed by Standing Order No.601 of A.P. Police Manual , Part-I, Volume II, which reads as under:

“601. The following persons may be classified as rowdies and Rowdy Sheets (Form 80) may be opened for them under the orde