Telangana High Court
WP/20858/2003 of M.M.Jahangir Ali Azad, s/o late Mahboob Ali Vs The Commissioner of Police, Cybarabad, office at on 27 December 2007
SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION NO.20858 of 2003 ORDER: 1 Questioning the continuance of the rowdy sheet opened against him, petitioner filed this petition. 2 The case, in brief, of the petitioner is that though he is a social worker without any political influence, and is fighting
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU
WRIT PETITION NO.20858 of 2003
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:
1 Questioning the continuance of the rowdy sheet opened againsthim, petitioner filed this petition.
2 The case, in brief, of the petitioner is that though he is a socialworker without any political influence, and is fighting the cause of thepoor who are shelter less and the hut dwellers, respondents whoopened a rowdy sheet against him at the behest of political leaders bykeeping open that rowdy sheet are harassing him and his familymembers and are visiting his house in his absence and are harassingthe women folk in his house and so he filed writ petition No.24325 of2001 to cancel the rowdy sheet against him, which was disposed of on12.06.2002 with a direction to file an application before the SubDivisional Officer to cancel the rowdy sheet, but he did not file such anapplication as the police threatened him. Subsequently he was falselyimplicated in two more cases by the Cyberabad police, whereupon heobtained anticipatory bail in one of those cases and regular bail inanother case. Thereafter he filed writ petition No.11347 of 2003seeking protection of his life after he was detained under preventivedetention law. Since the rowdy sheet opened against him is beingcontinued without application of mind and as he was not convicted inany of the cases registered against him, the order impugned, decidingto continue the rowdy sheet against him for one more year, withouthaving regard to the conditions laid down in the Police StandingOrders is liable to be quashed.
3 The Sub Inspector of Police, L.B. Nagar Police Station filed hiscounter affidavit on behalf of the respondents inter alia contending thatthe rowdy sheet against the petitioner was opened on 07.07.1990 bythe L.B.Nagar police for one year and is being extended from time totime. The averment that the petitioner is a social worker and is helpingthe poor and that the L.B. Nagar police are constantly harassing his old mother and threatening his wife are all not true. Police neverthreatened anyone in the family of the petitioner. Petitioner is not asocial worker and is a confirmed rowdy element in the area. Petition toclose the rowdy sheet, on the ground that he was not convicted in anyof the cases registered was not considered because petitioner is aconfirmed bad character and was involved in 18 cases from 1988 till2004 under various sections of IPC and other enactments, some ofwhich are still pending trial. Acquittal of the petitioner in some caseswould not clothe him with a right to seek closure of the rowdy sheetagainst him. Petitioner who is absconding is playing hide and seekwith police used to threaten witnesses in the cases registered againsthim and is trying to grab government and private land and is makingmoney by settling cases. Many people are afraid even to lodge acomplaint against him. So it is not desirable to close the rowdy sheetagainst the petitioner in the larger interest of public.
4 On 26.04.2004 petitioner filed his reply affidavit inter aliacontending that the averment in the counter affidavit filed on behalf ofthe respondents that he is absconding is not true and that pendency ofcases is not one of the requirements under the Police Standing Ordersto continue the rowdy sheet against him at the behest of the politicalleaders.
5 Second respondent filed his counter affidavit on 30.10.2007inter alia contending that the rowdy sheet opened against thepetitioner is being reviewed from time to time and is extended till31.12.2007 and disputing the averment that the petitioner is a socialworker and that he from 1988 to 2003 is involved in 17 cases undervarious sections of IPC and other laws and all those cases, exceptcase in Crime No.113 of 2003 registered under section 148, 324, 307and 435 read with 149 IPC on the file of the Cyberabad police stationwhich is still pending ended in acquittal. As and when all the caseswhich are pending against him are closed, petitioner can make arepresentation for closure of the rowdy sheet and then it would be considered in accordance with law by the competent authority. Sinceenquiries made by him revealed that the petitioner is a land grabberand was involved in a number of cases surveillance on him isrequired, as oral complaints are being received against him that he iscontinuing his rowdy activities in the area.
6 Petitioner filed his reply affidavit for the counter affidavit filed bythe 2[nd] respondent inter alia contending that inasmuch as all the casesregistered against him ended in acquittal and as the court in severalcases held that pendency of one case is not a ground either foropening or continuing a rowdy sheet under Police Standing OrderNo.742 or 735, continuance of the rowdy sheet on the basis of oralcomplaints and personal enquiries is improper.
7 The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is thatsince the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the applicationare not denied or disputed by the respondents 1 and 2 initially, and asthe person who passed the order impugned continuing the rowdysheet against the petitioner did not file his counter affidavit stating thefacts and circumstances leading to his taking a decision to continuethe rowdy sheet against the petitioner, and since the 3[rd] respondentwho is a subordinate to the 2[nd] respondent cannot know the basis onwhich 2[nd] respondent passed the order continuing the rowdy sheetagainst the petitioner, the order impugned is liable to be quashed. Thecontention of the learned Government Pleader for Home is thatinasmuch as the petition is a well known rowdy element in the areaand is putting the people in the area to threat not to give evidenceagainst him, there are no grounds to interfere with the order impugned.
8 The fact that the petitioner was acquitted in all the casesregistered against him is admitted in the counter affidavit dated31.10.2007 filed by the 2[nd] respondent. According to the respondentsonly one case is pending against the petitioner. Since acquittalamounts to giving a clean chit to the accused, it cannot be said that the person acquitted was either involved or committed the offence allegedagainst him. It is also well known that pendency or registering of onecase is not a ground for opening or a rowdy sheet. Even according tothe respondents there is only one case is pending trial against thepetitioner and in all other cases he was acquitted. Therefore, in myconsidered opinion, continuance of the rowdy sheet against thepetitioner is unwarranted.
9 Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the order passeddirecting continuance of the rowdy sheet against the petitioner isquashed. This order does not preclude the respondents fromreviewing the case of the petitioner and taking action against him asper law. No order as to costs.
27.12.2007Kvsn/Cvrk
-------------------------
C.Y.Somayajulu, J.