Rowdy Sheets Cannot Be Opened Mechanically: Andhra Pradesh High Court
The High Court held that rowdy sheets cannot be opened or continued routinely or mechanically, and that due care must be exercised by the police to assess whether the alleged conduct actually disturbs public peace and tranquillity.
Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, Andhra Pradesh High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that the opening and continuation of rowdy sheets must conform strictly to established legal principles and cannot be resorted to casually or mechanically.
The Court held that the mere pendency of a criminal case is insufficient to justify the opening or continuation of a rowdy sheet, particularly when the alleged offence does not demonstrably disturb public peace and tranquillity.
A Bench of Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa observed: “A rowdy sheet cannot be opened mechanically and not in a casual manner. In opening a rowdy sheet, it is essential that due care is taken by the Respondent Police, and every year the committee has to review whether the rowdy sheet should be continued or not.
The other aspect, the Bench clarified, that has to be seen by the Police is “whether the crimes which are registered against the Accused would come within the purview of disturbing the public peace and tranquillity at large.”
Background
The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the action of the police authorities in continuing a rowdy sheet against the petitioners.
The petitioners submitted that, except for a crime under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC, no other criminal cases were pending against them. It was further contended that the alleged offence did not relate to the disturbance of public peace and tranquillity.
The petitioners contended that they were being repeatedly directed to appear before the police for being bound over for maintaining peace and good behaviour, despite the absence of any justification for such action.
The State, through the Assistant Government Pleader, fairly admitted that apart from the said crime, no other cases were pending against the petitioners.
Court’s Observation
The High Court examined the legal position governing the opening and continuation of rowdy sheets and relied upon the decision of a Coordinate Bench in Sunkara Satyanarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2000), which laid down that rowdy sheets cannot be opened against any individual casually or mechanically.
The Coordinate Bench, in its order, had observed that “dubbing a person as a habitual offender and to open a rowdy sheet is not sufficient, while stressing that, “due care and caution shall be taken by the Police before characterising a person as a rowdy”.
The Bench noted that the judgment in Sunkara Satyanarayana makes it clear that the police are required to undertake an annual review through the appropriate committee to determine whether the continuation of a rowdy sheet is warranted. Such a review must be based on objective assessment and cannot be a routine exercise, the Court observed.
Applying these principles to the facts of the case, the Court observed that, admittedly, only one criminal case was pending against the petitioners. The Court found that, in the absence of multiple cases or material demonstrating habitual conduct affecting public order, the continuation of the rowdy sheet could not be sustained.
The Court held that continuing the rowdy sheet against the petitioners in such circumstances amounted to an abuse of the process of law and violated the safeguards laid down by judicial precedent
Conclusion
In view of the above findings, the High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned rowdy sheet maintained against the petitioners. No order as to costs was passed, and all pending miscellaneous petitions were directed to stand closed
Cause Title: Nagireddi Satish Kumar @ James & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Appearances
Petitioners: P. B. Narasimha Murty, Advocate
Respondents: Government Pleader for Home
