Telangana High Court
WP/28155/2007 of Kommera Madhu, Vs The Superintendent of Police, on 28 December 2007
SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 28155 of 2007 Dated 28th December, 2007 Between Kommera Madhu …Petitioner and The Superintendent of Police, Guntur District, Guntur, and, ors …Respondents. THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 28155 of 2007 ORDER:
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO : 28155 of 2007
BetweenKommera Madhu
Dated 28[th] December, 2007
…Petitioner
and
The Superintendent of Police, Guntur District, Guntur, and, ors …Respondents.
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDYWRIT PETITION NO : 28155 of 2007
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:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking Writ of Mandamus to declarethe action of the third respondent in opening and continuing the rowdysheet against the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary.
In the year 1998, the third respondent opened the rowdy sheetagainst the petitioner as contemplated under the Police StandingOrders on the ground that the petitioner involved in Crime Nos.17/1995, 137/1997, 170/1999, 130/2000 and 18/2003 on the file of theMacherla Police Station, Macherla, Guntur District. It is the grievanceof the petitioner that in spite of acquittal of the petitioner in all theabove cases and there is no further involvement of the petitioner inany other crimes after 2003, the respondents are continuing the rowdysheet against the petitioner mechanically, without reviewing the same.
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learnedGovernment Pleader for Home.
In the case of S.Satyanarayana Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh{1999 {6) ALT 249}, this Court held that the rowdy sheet openedcannot be continued mechanically and it has to be reviewed periodically. Though it is submitted by the learned Counsel for thepetitioner that in spite of acquittal of the petitioner in all the cases, therowdy sheet is being continued against the petitioner, but, however,whether the petitioner is involved in any other cases or not so as tocontinue the rowdy sheet against the petitioner, is a matter which isrequired to be considered by the competent authority. In that view ofthe matter, as it is stated that all the cases, in which the petitioner wasinvolved, ended in acquittal after trial and there is no furtherinvolvement of the petitioner in any other crimes and the rowdy sheetopened against him is valid up to 31-12-2007, I dispose of the WritPetition, permitting the petitioner to make a representation in thisregard before the first and second respondents within a period of twoweeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, giving details ofacquittals . If such a representation is filed, the respondents aredirected to review the necessity of continuance or otherwise of therowdy sheet opened against the petitioner, by taking into account theacquittals of the petitioner in various criminal proceedings and non-involvement of the petitioner in other criminal cases, and, passappropriate orders and communicate the same to the petitioner.
Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.No order as to costs.
DATE: 28-12-2007CC in two days(BO) Msnr.
----------------------------------JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY