APHC010313702025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 16017/2025 Between: ALLU APPANNA,, S/O- APPANNA, AGED- 36, R/O- D.NO. 1-1, DAKAMARRI, BHEEMUNIPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, MADHURAWADA SUB- DIVISION, VISAKHAPATNAM. 4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BHEEMUNIPATNAM P.S, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: P VIVEK Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR HOME 2 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.16017 of 2025 Dated 07.04.2026 The Court made the following: ORDER: The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “…to issue any writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent police opening and continuing the Rowdy Sheetm C No 16/ History Sheet/ACP MWD / 2014 against the petitioner by the 4th respondent pursuant to the orders of the 3rd respondent as contrary to law illegal and arbitrary and in violation of petitioners Fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 to close the said Rowdy Sheet No C No 16/History Sheet/ACPMWD/2014 in the interest of justice and pass….” 2. Mr. P.Vivek, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that respondent police opened a rowdy sheet in pursuant to the proceedings issued by the respondent No.3 vide C.No.16/History Sheet/ACP-MWD/2014 dated 10.09.2014 on the file of Bheemunipatnam Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, without following Police Standing Orders of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual, and that the rowdy sheet is still continuing, which is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. He, therefore, urged to set aside the impugned proceedings. Respondent No.3 has filed counter in this case. 3. Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, submits that a case in Crime No.289 of 2012 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of ‘the IPC’ was registered by the Station House Officer, Bheemunipatnam Police Station, Visakhapatnam 3 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.16017 of 2025 Dated 07.04.2026 District, against the petitioner. The present Writ Petitioner is Accused No.1. Later on 17.10.2019 the petitioner was acquitted by the learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Court of Trial of Offences against Women, Visakhapatnam, vide S.C.No.41 of 2023. It is further submitted that, in order to curb and curtail the unlawful activities of the petitioner in the vicinity of Bheemunipatnam Police Station, the Station House Officer, Bheemunipatnam Police Station, opened rowdy sheet against the petitioner after obtaining permission from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Madhurawada Sub-Division, Visakhapatnam District/respondent No.3, vide proceedings in C.No.16/History Sheet/ACP-MWD/2014 dated 10.09.2014. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 5. As per Andhra Pradesh Police Manual Order No.601 the following persons should be classified as rowdies and rowdy sheets shall be opened for them under the order of the Superintendent of Police/SDPO. i. Persons, who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences involving a breach of the peace, disturbances to public order and security. ii. Persons bound over under sections 106, 107, 108(1) and 110(e) and (g) of Cr.P.C. iii. Persons who have been convicted more than once in two consecutive years under sections 59 and 70 of the Hyderabad city police Act or under section 3. clause 12 of the AP Town Nuisances Act. 4 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.16017 of 2025 Dated 07.04.2026 iv. Persons who habitually tease women and girls and pass indecent remarks including offences U/sec. 354-A, B C and 354D IPC. V. Persons who have been charge sheeted under the offence of Rape (376, 376, A,C D.E). vi. Persons who have been charge sheeted under the offences of POCSO Act, 2012 and Acid Attacks (326A and 326B of IPC) vii. Rowdy sheets for the rowdies residing one police station area but found frequenting the other Police Stations area, can be maintained at all such police stations. viii. Persons who intimidate by threats or use of physical violence or other unlawful means to part with movable or immovable properties or in the habit of collecting money by extortion from shopkeepers, traders and other residents including "loan sharks". ix. Persons who incite, instigate and participate in communal/caste or political riots. x. Persons detained under the AP prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 for a period of 6 months or more. xi. Persons on whom charge sheets filed under the offence of assault on public servants, under Arms Act and such other offences punishable with imprisonment of 2 years or more. xii Persons on who charge sheets filed under the offence of murder and attempt to murder (302 and 307 IPC) xiii. Persons on whom charge sheets filed under the offence of chain snatching. xiv. Persons who are convicted under the Representation of People Act, 1951for rigging, carrying away, damaging ballot paper, boxes and polling material. 6. On careful perusal of the Standing Orders, the respondent cannot open or continue a rowdy sheet/suspect sheet against the petitioner, inasmuch as 5 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.16017 of 2025 Dated 07.04.2026 the petitioner does not fit into any of the conditions enumerated in the said Standing Orders. The petitioner has not committed any offence mentioned in the Standing Orders. A case in Crime No.289 of 2012 was registered, in the said crime the petitioner was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge on 17.10.2019. There are no instances of committing similar offence by the petitioner after his acquittal. As per Andhra Pradesh Police Manual Order No.601(v) the Rowdy Sheet was opened against the petitioner in the year 2014. Since 2014 onwards, the accused has been maintaining a clean record. Therefore, there is no justification in continuing the rowdy sheet against the petitioner for years together. 7. In pari materia, this Court in Tadiboyina Peraiah @ Mahesh v. State of A.P 1 held that when no crimes are pending against a person and no material is produced to demonstrate threat to public peace, continuation of a rowdy sheet under Standing Order No. 601 or 602(2) of the A.P. Police Standing Orders is impermissible. 8. Similarly, in Sunkara Satyanarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh2, a Coordinate Bench categorically observed that rowdy sheet cannot be opened in a casual or mechanical manner. Mere dubbing of an individual as a habitual offender is insufficient. The Police must exercise due care and caution before branding a person as a rowdy, and the essential consideration is whether the acts of such person have a tendency to disturb public peace and tranquility. 12021 (2) ALT (Crl.) 161 22000(1) ALD (Crl.) 117 (AP) 6 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.16017 of 2025 Dated 07.04.2026 9. A careful reading of these precedents clearly indicates that the creation or continuation of rowdy sheet requires strict adherence to procedural safeguards and regular review by the statutorily designated authorities. The Respondents are duty-bound to examine whether the alleged misconduct genuinely affects public peace. In the present case, the Petitioner was acquitted in Crime No.289 of 2012 on 17.10.2019. In such circumstances, the continuation of the impugned rowdy sheet amounts to an arbitrary exercise of power and constitutes an abuse of process. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed, declaring that the continuation of the impugned rowdy sheet against the petitioner is illegal. The respondent authorities are directed to forthwith close the said rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner. However, it is open to the police concerned to invoke appropriate proceedings against the petitioner if he indulges in any offences which warrant opening of any sheet, such as a rowdy sheet, suspect sheet, or history sheet. 11. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 07.04.2026 RSI 7 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.16017 of 2025 Dated 07.04.2026 190 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 16017 of 2025 Date: 07.04.2026 RSI