APHC010388172024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF NDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3368] TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI WRIT PETITION No: 17901/2019 Between: 1. CHAPALA RAMA SUBBA RAO, S/O RAMACHANDRA RAO, AGED 45 YEARS, HINDU,IMMADI SERTTIVARIPALEM, WB 4-79, 24TH WARD, BAPATLA TOWN, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HOME), SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUNTUR DISTRICT RURAL, GUNTUR. 3. THE SUB DIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER, BAPATLA SUB DIVISION, BAPATLA, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BAPATLA RURAL PS, BAPATLA. 5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BAPATLA TOWN PS, BAPATLA ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SATYA PRASAD V Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME (AP) The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI WRIT PETITION No: 17901/2019 O R D E R: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of 3rd to 5th Respondents, opening of Suspect Sheet No.138 on the file of SHO Bapatla Rural PS and continuing it by 5th Respondent Bapatla Town PS even though no criminal cases are pending as on the Proceedings C.No.33/SDPO-BPL/2015 dated 28.02.2015 is without jurisdiction, without following any procedure under statues as illegal, arbitrary and against to the Principles of natural justice and violative of Art. 14, 16, 19 (1) (g), 21, 300 A and 301 of Constitution of India and consequently quash the Suspect Sheet No.138 on the file of 4th and 5th Respondents. 2. Heard Sri V.Satya Prasad, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even as per the counter affidavit filed by the respondents/police, as on the day, no cases are pending against the petitioner, and the two 4 cases referred in the counter affidavit were ended in acquittal and in those circumstance, continuance of the suspect sheet against the petitioner is not sustainable in law, and also not in accordance with the Police Standing Order No.601. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home would submit that the petitioner was involved in two cases, and the said two cases were ended in acquittal. Though the said cases were ended in acquittal, there is a chance that the petitioner may repeat the offences and likely to indulge in violence. 5. Admittedly, the impugned suspect sheet was opened against the petitioner earlier with certain alleged offences. Even as per the counter affidavit, no other case is pending against the petitioner herein as on today. It is not the case of the respondents/police that the petitioner has been shown as accused in any other case or he was directed to bind over under Section 107 Cr.P.C. 6. Going by the Police Standing Order No.601, the petitioner would not come within the purview of any of the clauses mentioned therein. Clause 1 of the Police Standing Order No.601 contemplates that suspect sheets may be opened against the 5 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. In the present case on hand, except the above mentioned cases registered against the petitioner herein, there are no other cases pending against him. 7. By virtue of the same, it can safely be inferred that the petitioner herein would not come within the purview of habitual offender. Neither had he abetted the commission of offences involving breach of peace nor was he responsible for causing disturbance to public order or security. When such is the case, continuation of suspect sheet against the petitioner herein would amount to abuse of process of the Court. 8. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is allowed, directing the respondents/police to take necessary action forthwith, for closure of the suspect sheet opened against the petitioner herein, soon after receipt of copy of the order. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 6 As a sequel thereto, the interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. _______________________ ____ JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI Dated: 02.09.2025. PSK 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI 08 WRIT PETITION No: 17901 OF 2019 Date: 02.09.2025 W PSK