APHC010602442022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3604] THURSDAY, THE 24th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM WRIT PETITION NO: 36204/2022 Between: 1. PALLA YUVARAJ YADAV, S/O P. DIWADEENAM, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/AT D.NO. 401, RAJARAJESWARI APARTMENT, SREENAGAR COLONY, NEAR NEERU PRAGATHI VANAM PARK, 8O FEET ROAD, ANANTAPUR, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY IT'S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, DGP OFFICE, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PUTTAPARTHI, SRI SATHYASAI DISTRICT. 4. THE SUB DIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER, DHARMAVARAM, SRI SATHYASAI DISTRICT. 5. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, C. K. PALLI, SRI SATHYASAI DISTRICT. 6. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANAGANIPALLI POLICE STATION, SRI SATHYASAI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 SUN, J W.P.No.36204 of 2022 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 topleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction declaring Rowdy Sheet No. 49 dt. 30.08.2022 opened against the Petitioner by the Respondents is arbitrary, illegal, malafide and violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents herein to close the Rowdy Sheet No. 49 dt. 30.08.2022 opened against the Petitioner and further direct not to interfere with the life and personal liberty of the Petitioners and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents herein not to interfere with the life and liberty of the Petitioner by calling them to the Police Station, pursuant to opening of rowdy sheet by the Respondents herein, pending disposal of the Writ Petition before this Hon'ble Court and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. O UDAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: 3 SUN, J W.P.No.36204 of 2022 THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM WRIT PETITION No.36204 OF 2022 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondents to close Rowdy Sheet No.49 dated 30.08.2022 opened against the petitioner and to restrain the respondents from interfering with his life and personal liberty except in accordance with law. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he is an agriculturist and that respondent No.6 submitted proposals to the superior police authorities seeking permission to open a rowdy sheet against him under Order No.601 of the A.P. Police Manual. The proposal was stated to be based upon Crime No.67 of 2022 of Kanaganapalli Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC'). The petitioner contends that the said case was foisted against him due to political vengeance and that, except for the said case, he had not been involved in any other criminal case. He further states that he was acquitted in Crime No.9 of 2003, which was referred to in the proceedings of the respondents. 3. It is further contended that, pursuant to the proposal submitted by respondent No.6, the superior police authorities issued proceedings dated 30.08.2022 and opened Rowdy Sheet No.49 against the petitioner under Order No.601 (Part-I, Vol-II-B) of the A.P. Police Manual. Respondent No.6 was also instructed to keep a close watch on the movements of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the rowdy sheet was opened on the basis of the pendency of two criminal cases and without following the procedure prescribed under the Standing Orders of the A.P. Police Manual. 4 SUN, J W.P.No.36204 of 2022 4. The petitioner further contends that the respondents failed to satisfy the requirements of Standing Order No.601 of the A.P. Police Manual before opening the rowdy sheet and that such action, without a valid and legally sustainable basis, amounts to an unwarranted interference with his rights and personal liberty. 5. Respondent No.4 filed a counter-affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner has scant respect for law and was involved in two criminal cases, namely, Crime No.9 of 2003 for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and Crime No.67 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC. On the basis of the proposal submitted by respondent No.6, the rowdy sheet was opened against the petitioner. It is further contended that, if the rowdy sheet is closed and proper vigilance is not maintained over the petitioner, he is likely to indulge in malpractices by convening panchayats. 6. It is also contended by the respondents that the petitioner suppressed the material fact that a rowdy sheet had earlier been opened against him on 22.02.2003 and that close watch had been maintained over him since then. According to the respondents, the said rowdy sheet was renewed from time to time and continued up to 31.12.2022. It is further stated that, in recent times, the petitioner was involved in Crime No.67 of 2022, in which he was remanded to judicial custody along with the other accused and was subsequently enlarged on bail by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a charge-sheet, which is pending as P.R.C.No.29 of 2022. The respondents claim that the Standing Orders of the A.P. Police Manual were duly followed and that mere continuation of the rowdy sheet cannot, by itself, be construed as harassment. 5 SUN, J W.P.No.36204 of 2022 7. Heard Sri O. Udaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. Mallikharjuna Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.6 recommended opening the rowdy sheet without following the Standing Orders, particularly Standing Order No.601 of the A.P. Police Manual, and that the superior police authorities mechanically accepted the proposal. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not a habitual offender and that, except for the cases referred to by the respondents, he has neither been convicted nor involved in any other criminal case. According to the learned counsel, the requirements prescribed by the Standing Orders and the principles laid down by this Court have not been complied with. 9. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the petitioner is involved in two criminal cases and that the rowdy sheet was opened pursuant to the instructions of the superior police authorities in accordance with the applicable Standing Orders. It is contended that there is no harassment of the petitioner and that the writ petition is devoid of merit. 10. In B. Satyanarayana Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh1, it was held that under Police Standing Order No.742, in order to include the name of a person in a rowdy sheet, it has to be established that such person habitually commits or abets the commission of offences involving breach of peace. It was further held that a solitary case resulting in breach of peace is not sufficient to include the name of a person in a rowdy sheet. 11. In Majid Babu v. Government of A.P.2, the Division Bench, relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vide Malak Singh v. State of Punjab 3 , held that although the police are not required to communicate reasons or afford an opportunity of hearing before opening a rowdy sheet, when such action is questioned before a Court on the ground 1 2004 (1) ALD (Crl.) 387 2 1987 (2) ALT 904 3 (1981) 1 SCC 420 6 SUN, J W.P.No.36204 of 2022 that it is contrary to the Police Standing Orders, the respondents are required to satisfy the Court that the action taken by them is in accordance with the Standing Orders or any other valid provision of law. The said judgment also observes that two instances would not, by themselves, make a person a habitual offender and that the mere fact that a person figures as an accused in two crimes does not necessarily establish that he is a habitual offender. 12. In Puttagunta Pasi v. Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada4, the Division Bench held that rowdy sheets cannot be opened in a routine, casual or mechanical manner against persons who are not habitual offenders. The Court further observed that due care and caution must be exercised before characterising a person as a rowdy and that the relevant consideration is whether the acts attributed to the person have a tendency to disturb public peace and tranquillity. 13. Standing Order No.601 of the A.P. Police Manual provides the categories of persons who may be classified as rowdies and against whom rowdy sheets may be opened under the orders of the competent police authorities. Among others, it contemplates persons who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences involving breach of peace, disturbance of public order and security; persons bound over under the specified provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure; persons convicted more than once in two consecutive years under the specified enactments; persons who habitually tease women and girls and pass indecent remarks; persons who intimidate by threats or use physical violence or other unlawful means to part with property or habitually collect money by extortion; persons who incite or instigate communal, caste or political riots; persons detained under the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 4 (1998) 3 ALT 55 7 SUN, J W.P.No.36204 of 2022 1966, for a period of six months or more; and persons convicted for specified offences under the Representation of the People Act. 14. The above Standing Order makes it clear that opening of a rowdy sheet is not intended to be an automatic consequence of registration of a criminal case. The requirement of habituality, wherever prescribed, and the nature and tendency of the alleged acts have to be considered before a person is classified as a rowdy. The power, though intended to facilitate preventive policing, has to be exercised within the parameters prescribed by the Standing Orders and cannot be used mechanically merely because a person is shown as an accused in one or two criminal cases. 15. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was shown as an accused in Crime No.9 of 2003 and Crime No.67 of 2022. The respondents have not placed any material before this Court demonstrating that the petitioner falls within any of the specific categories contemplated by Standing Order No.601, particularly the category requiring habitual commission, attempt or abetment of offences involving breach of peace, disturbance of public order or security. The respondents have also not demonstrated any conviction of the petitioner which would independently attract any of the other categories specified in the Standing Order. 16. The respondents rely upon the pendency of Crime No.67 of 2022 and the earlier Crime No.9 of 2003. However, mere registration of two criminal cases, without more, cannot by itself establish that the petitioner is a habitual offender so as to justify opening or continuing a rowdy sheet. The allegation that the petitioner may indulge in malpractices by convening panchayats is also not, by itself, sufficient unless supported by material bringing his conduct within one of the categories prescribed under Standing Order No.601. Added to it, the case in crime No.9 of 2003 is registered of the offence under Section 324 IPC and it is not in dispute that the petitioner acquitted in that case. 8 SUN, J W.P.No.36204 of 2022 17. The contention of the respondents that a rowdy sheet had earlier been opened against the petitioner on 22.02.2003 and was renewed from time to time also does not, by itself, dispense with the requirement of satisfying the conditions of the Standing Order for its continuation or reopening. The legality of the impugned action has to be examined with reference to the material and circumstances relied upon for the rowdy sheet in question. 18. It is also relevant that the pendency of Crime No.67 of 2022, culminating in the filing of a charge-sheet in P.R.C.No.29 of 2022, cannot by itself be treated as proof of habitual criminal conduct. The criminal case has to be dealt with in accordance with law before the competent criminal Court, and the mere pendency of such proceedings cannot substitute the requirements prescribed under Standing Order No.601 for classifying a person as a rowdy. 19. Having regard to the principles laid down in the decisions referred to above and the requirements of Standing Order No.601, this Court is of the considered view that the material placed by the respondents is insufficient to establish that the petitioner falls within the categories for which a rowdy sheet may be opened. Mere involvement in the present criminal case, particularly in the absence of material establishing habituality or any other specific circumstance contemplated by the Standing Order, cannot justify the impugned action. The respondents were therefore required to exercise greater care and to record satisfaction on the basis of material showing that the petitioner answered the requirements of the Standing Order before opening the rowdy sheet. 20. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to close Rowdy/History Sheet No.49 dated 30.08.2022 maintained in the name of the petitioner. It is, however, made clear that this order shall not preclude the competent police authorities from taking any action permissible in law, including in accordance with the applicable Standing Orders, if fresh 9 SUN, J W.P.No.36204 of 2022 material subsequently comes into existence satisfying the prescribed requirements. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ SUNITHA GANDHAM, J 24.09.2026 Vns