Telangana High Court
WP/14263/2004 of G. Mallikarjuna S/o Hanumanthappa Vs The Sub Divisional Police Officer, on 24 December 2007
SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU W.P.No.14263 of 2004 Date: 24-12-2007 Between: G. Mallikarjuna and another Petitioners And The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Guntakal,Anantapur District and another Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU W.P.No.14263 of 2004 ORDER: 1. Questioning
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU
W.P.No.14263 of 2004Date: 24-12-2007
Between:
G. Mallikarjuna and another Petitioners
And
The Sub-Divisional Police Officer,Guntakal,Anantapur District and another Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
W.P.No.14263of 2004
1. Questioning the action of the respondents in opening Rowdy Sheetsand History Sheets against them, the petitioners filed this writ petition.
2. The case of petitioners, in brief, is that first petitioner was implicatedin false case in C.C.No.1142 of 2002 on the file of the V MetropolitanMagistrate, Hyderabad and except that case there are no other casespending against him. As he was acquitted in C.C.No.1142 of 2002 on21.11.2002 and as no other cases are pending against him subsequent tothe disposal of C.C.No.1142 of 2002, continuation of the RowdySheet/ History Sheet against him is improper and illegal. Though somepetty cases were registered in Guntakal town Police Station against thesecond petitioner inasmuch as those cases ended in acquittal and as nofurther cases were registered against him, continuation of the RowdySheet/History Sheet against the second petitioner also is improper andillegal.
3. Though the writ petition is filed in the year 2004, no counter affidavitis filed on behalf of the respondents till today.
4. It is well known that for opening a Rowdy Sheet /History Sheet, morethan one criminal case must have been registered against him. Accordingto the first petitioner, except one case, there are no other cases pending or registered against him. In view thereof, opening of a Rowdy Sheet/ HistorySheet against him is improper because it is not the case of therespondents that more than one case is pending against first petitioner.
5. Since petty cases registered against the second petitioner are saidto have ended in acquittal and as no other criminal cases are pendingagainst him, continuation of Rowdy Sheet/History Sheet against him alsois improper.
6. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the Rowdy/History Sheetsopened against the petitioners are quashed. Nocosts.
________________
C.Y.SOMAYAJULU,J
24-12-2007Stp