Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 18823
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
E.V. Venugopal, J
Syed Dastagir Shah – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.39228 of 2025
A rowdy sheet cannot be maintained against an individual if they are not currently involved in any criminal cases and do not meet the threshold of a 'habitual offender' as per the Police Manual and judicial precedents.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged the maintenance of a rowdy sheet by respondent police as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(1), and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner had been involved in several criminal cases, all of which ended in acquittal as witnesses turned hostile, and no cases are currently pending against him. The court examined the A.P. Police Manual, specifically Standing Orders 601, 602, and 742, which define the criteria for classifying individuals as rowdies and maintaining surveillance sheets. The central issue was whether the petitioner could be classified as a 'habitual offender' to justify the continuation of a rowdy sheet when all prior cases resulted in acquittals and no current cases are pending. The court reasoned that a person is generally labeled a 'habitual offender' only if involved in more than two criminal cases and based on the principles laid down in preceding judgments, the continuation of a rowdy sheet in the absence of pending cases or convictions constitutes illegality. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges the legality of a rowdy sheet after acquittals in all cases. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. respondent police document the history of crimes and current status of the petitioner. (Para 4) |
| 3. police manual standing orders define criteria for maintaining and retaining rowdy sheets. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. requirement of involvement in more than two cases to be deemed a habitual offender. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. illegal maintenance of rowdy sheet without pending cases warrants its closure. (Para 11 , 12) |
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:-
“…to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order declaring the action of the Respondent Nos.3 to 7 in maintaining the rowdy sheet against the petitioner as arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 19(1) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently directing the Respondent Nos.3 to 7 to close the rowdy sheet which has been maintained against the Petitioner …”
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. Perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner hails from respectable family and he is a law abiding citizen and he is the sole bread winner of his family. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that in view of registration of a case against the petitioner vide Crime No.507 of 2004 of S.R.Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad District for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 295 of Indian Penal Code (IPC for brevity), a rowdy sheet/surveillance sheet has been opened against him. It is the further case of the petitioner that the said case has been charged on 09.07.2004 and was put on trial by the trial Court vide S.C.No.416 of 2014 and the said case has ended up in acquittal on 25.02.2016 as the witness turned hostile.
3.1. The main grievance of the petitioner is that as on today no case is pending against the petitioner herein. However, without considering the said fact and also the procedure laid down under the A.P.Police Manual, the respondents have opened the above said rowdy sheet against the petitioner herein and they are continuing the same which is arbitrary, illegal and also contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of decisions. Learned counsel would further submit that under the guise of opening and continuation of rowdy sheet, the respondents-police are calling the petitioner to the police station and harassing him by making him to wait in the police station for hours together. With the said submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner sought a direction to the respondents to close the above said rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner.
4. A counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.4 stating that, in view of the involvement of the petitioner in following crimes the respondent police have opened a rowdy sheet against him on 17.07.2008 on the file of the Station House Office, Falaknuma Police Station, Hyderabad:
1. Crime No.16 of 2002, under Section 420, 464, 468 of IPC and 12(1)(b) of Passport Act of P.S. Kanchanbagh. The case was charged on 27.02.2004 and numbered as C.C.No.331 of 2004, which ended in acquittal on 09.02.2007 as the witness turned hostile.
2. Crime No.507 of 2004, under Section 365 and 295 of IPC of P.S. S.R.Nagar. The case was charged on 09.07.2004 and numbered as S.C.No.416 of 2014 which ended in acquittal on 25.02.2016, as the witness turned hostile.
3. Crime No.72 of 2008, under Sections 384, 420, 506, 109 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 25(A) of Arms Act of P.S. Saanthosh Nagar. The case was charged and numbered as C.C.No.1951 of 2009 which ended in acquittal on 20.06.2012 as the witness turned hostile.
4. Crime No.348 of 2015, under Section 143, 147, 148, 302, 149, 120-B read with Section 34 of IPC of P.S.Chandrayanagutta, Hyderabad. The case was charged and numbered as S.C.No.649 of 2018
