Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 32575 (AP)

DUDYALA ABDUL JALEEL v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WP/25050/2023 · 2025-02-11

B V L N Chakravarthi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

p IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. V. L. N. CHAKRAVARTHI WRIT PETITION NO: 25050 OF 2023 Between: Dudyala Abdul Jaleel, S/o. Dudyala Abdul Murthuja, Aged about 39 years Occ: Reporter, R/o. 2-720-47, A Vengal Reddy Nagar, Urban Colony Atmakur, Nandyal District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretaiy, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Nandyal District (formerly Kurnool District) 4. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Atmakur, Nandyal District (formerly Kurnool District). 5. The Atmakur Police Station, Represented by its Station House Officer Atmakur, Nandyal District (formerly Kurnool District). ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 4^'' and respondents in opening Suspect Sheet No. 630/2012 against the petitioner and continuing the same mechanically without passing reasoned orders as illegal. Arbitrary, unconstitutional, and 1* consequently quash the Suspect Sheet No. 630/2012 against the petitioner in the respondent P.S. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 f Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to harass the petitioner herein by regularly calling him to the police stations in the name of counselling or interfere in any manner with his personal liberty. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SASANKA BHUVANAGIRI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: APHC010482002023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3368] TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI WRIT PETITION NO: 25050/2023 Between: 1.DUDYALA ABDUL JALEEL, S/0 DUDYALA ABDUL MURTHUJA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,OCC REPORTER, R/0 2-720-47, A VENGAL REDDY NAGAR, URBAN COLONY, ATMAKUR, NANDYAL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND REP BY ITS HOME DEPARTMENT, GUNTUR 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH SECRETARY, PRINCIPAL SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, DISTRICT. 2.THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, , ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NANDYAL DISTRICT (FORMERLY KURNOOL DISTRICT) 4.THE SUBDIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER, ATMAKUR, NANDYAL DISTRICT (FORMERLY KURNOOL DISTRICT). 5.THE ATMAKUR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ATMAKUR, NANDYAL DISTRICT (FORMERLY KURNOOL DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.SASANKA BHUVANAGIRI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GPFOR HOME(AP) The Court made the following: i^sssa t 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI WRIT PETITION No. 25050/2023 The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4'^ and 5'^ respondents in opening Suspect Sheet No. 630/2012 against the petitioner and continuing the same mechanically illegal. Arbitrary, without passing reasoned orders as unconstitutional, and consequently quash the Suspect Sheet No.630/2012 against the petitioner in the 5*^ respondent P.S. Heard Sri B.Sasanka, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.Farook, learned Additional Government Pleader for Home. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that all the cases which were registered against the petitioner herein are no longer pending and the petitioner got acquitted in all the cases and therefore, continuation of the rowdy sheet against the petitioner is not in accordance with the Police Standing Order No.601. 3. Learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that the petitioner was involved in certain offences earlier. Though the 4. 4 cases are no longer pending against the petitioner at there is a chance that the petitioner likely to indulge in violence. present, may repeat the offences and 5. Admittedly, the impugned rowdy sheet was opened against the petitioner earlier with certain alleged offences, the counter affidavit, petitioner herein Even as per no other case is pending against the 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 would not come within the petitioner purview of any of the clauses mentioned therein. Clause 1 of the Police Standing Order No.601 contemplates that rowdy sheets may be opened against the 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 hand, except the above mentioned present case on cases registered against the petitioner herein, there are no other cases pending against him. 5 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 they abetted the commission of offences involving breach of peace nor were they responsible for causing disturbances to public order or security. When such is the case, continuation of rowdy 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 rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner herein, soon after receipt of copy of the order. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. no Sd/- U.SRI DEVI ^RAR //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REG! N OFFICER SE To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, State of Andhra Pradesh 9 Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District Di's1rfcr‘''°" Pradesh, Mangalagiri, Guntur District (formerly Kurnool by its Station House Officer Atmakur, Nandyal District (formerly Kurnool District). y Sn Sasanka Bhuvanagiri, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra 8. CnrThree C.D, Copies Pradesh. [OUT] HIGH COURT DATED:11/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.25050 of 2023 o 0 3 MAR 2025 ^ . Current SectlMi ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS