Telangana High Court
WP/13529/2007 of G. Mani Kumar , babji S/o Anand Rao Vs The Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District on 27 December 2007
R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ petition No.13529 of 2007 Dated: December 27, 2007 Between: G. Mani Kumar @ Babji, S/o. Anand Rao, Aged about 33 years, R/o. Sakinetipalli Village and Mandal, East Godavari District. … Petitioner And The Superintendent of Police, East Godavari at Kakinada, and
HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
Writ petition No.13529 of 2007
Dated: December 27, 2007
Between:
G. Mani Kumar @ Babji, S/o. Anand Rao,Aged about 33 years, R/o. SakinetipalliVillage and Mandal, East Godavari District.
… Petitioner
And
The Superintendent of Police,East Godavari at Kakinada, and another.
… Respondents
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:
In this writ petition, petitioner seeks declaration by way ofMandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not closingrowdy sheet opened against him in the year 2002 as arbitrary andillegal.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learnedGovernment Pleader for Home appearing for respondents.
3. Petitioner was involved in Cr.No.30/97 registered for thealleged offences under Section 376(G) r/w Sections 511 and 34 of theIndian Penal Code and also in Cr.No.22/2002 registered for the alleged offence under Section 302 r/w Section 34 I.P.C, on the file ofSakinetipalli Police Station. In view of the involvement of the petitionerin the aforesaid crimes, a rowdy sheet was opened against him as perPolice Standing Order 742.
4. The case of the petitioner is that though he is acquitted of thecharges in the aforesaid crimes, the rowdy sheet opened against himis being continued and is not being reviewed in the absence of hisfurther involvement in any crime.
5. Respondent No.2 has filed counter affidavit. In the counteraffidavit, except referring to Crime Nos.30/1997 and 22/2002, nofurther cases, which are registered against the petitioner, are referredto.It is further stated that the rowdy sheet opened against thepetitioner is being reviewed from time to time and is valid up to31-12-2007.
6. Earlier, opening of rowdy sheet was governed by StandingOrder 742 of the Police Standing Orders. But, however, in the place ofold Standing Orders, new Police Standing Orders are brought intoforce and presently, opening of rowdy sheet and its continuance, aregoverned by Standing Order 601 of A.P Police Manual. In the case of
S. Satyanarayana Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh[[1]], this Court heldthat the rowdy sheet opened, cannot be continued mechanically and ithas to be reviewed periodically.
7. As it is stated that the aforesaid two cases, in which the petitionerwas involved, ended in acquittal after trial and there is no furtherinvolvement of the petitioner in any other crimes, I dispose of the Writ Petition directing the respondents to review the necessity ofcontinuance or otherwise of the rowdy sheet opened against thepetitioner, by taking into account his acquittal in criminal proceedingsand his non-involvement in other criminal cases and pass appropriateorders within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of thisorder and communicate the same to him.
8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
December 27, 2007MRR
_______________________________
JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY.