APHC010471592024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 24624/2024 Between: ONUMU APPALA RAJU, S/O LATE VENKANNA, R/O 7-106, RH COLONY, PM PALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRI SECRETARY,HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, NORTH SUB-DIVISION, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, P.M.PALEM POLICE STATION, P.M.PALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. J RAVI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “.... a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of Respondents in opening the Rowdy Sheet against the Petitioner by way of proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, North Sub-Division, Visakhapatnam in C.No.01/HISTORY SHEET/ACP-NORTH/2022, dated 30.01.2022 as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Police Manual and Standing Order No.601 and consequently to quash the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, 2 North Sub-Division, Visakhapatnam in C.No.01/HISTORY SHEET/ACP-NORTH/2022, dated 30.01.2022.....” 2. Sri P.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that except Crime No.699 of 2021 for the offence under Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii) and 22(b) of NDPS Act, on the file of P.M.Palem Police Station, Visakhapatnam, no other cases are pending against the Petitioner. 3. Sri V.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, would submit that, except one crime, there are no other cases pending against the Petitioner. 4. In Sunkara Satyanarayana Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh1 a Coordinate Bench of this Court held as follows: “It is clear that rowdy sheets cannot be opened against any individual in a casual and mechanical manner. Dubbing a person as an habitual offender and to open a rowdy sheet is not sufficient. On the other hand, due care and caution shall be taken by the Police before characterising a person as a rowdy. The important element that has to be seen in the acts of an offender is whether the acts so committed by a person will have a tendency to disturb public peace and tranquility”. 5. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment goes to show that, rowdy sheet cannot be opened mechanically and not in a casual manner. In opening a rowdy sheet it is essential that, due care has to be taken by the Respondent Police and, every year the committee has to review whether the rowdy sheet has to be continued or not. The other aspect that has to be seen by the Respondent Police is whether the crimes which are registered against the Accused would come within the purview of disturbing the public peace and 1 2000(1) ALD (Crl.) 117 (AP) 3 tranquility at large. In the case on hand, admittedly, a case in Crime No.699 of 2021 on the file of P.M.Palem Police Station, Visakhapatnam is pending against the Petitioner and as admitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, except the said crime, no other cases are pending against the Petitioner. In such circumstances, continuation of rowdy sheet against the Petitioner herein would amount to abuse of process of the Court. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned Rowdy Sheet against the Petitioner is hereby set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:16.09.2025 Dinesh 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.24624 of 2024 Dt.16.09.2025 Dinesh