APHC010429062024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 22392/2024 Between: 1. LAM RAJESH, S/O. LAM JANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 8-90, KOTHAPALLI VARI VEEDHI, AMRUTHALURU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BAPATIA, BAPATIA DISTRICT. 3. THE SUBDIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER, TENALI TENALI TOWN, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE SUBDIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER, REPALLE, REPALLE TOWN, BAPATLA DISTRICT. 5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, AMRUTHALURU, BAPATLA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents more particularly respondent Nos.2 to 5 in opening the impugned Rowdy Sheet No.54, dated 18.10.2021 and continuing the same from past 3 years against the petitioner on the file of Amruthaluru police station as highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently quash the same in the interest of justice by directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners life and liberty in any manner and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SARANU PHANI TEJA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2 The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed, by the Petitioner for the following relief: < ... to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents more particularly respondents 2 to 5 in opening the impugned Rowdy Sheet No.54, dated 18.10.2021 and continuing the same from past 3 years against the petitioner on the file of Amruthaluru police station as highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently, quash the same in the interest of justice by directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners life and liberty in any manner and pass such ...= Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home representing for respondent State. Perused the material on record. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that except Crime No.161 of 2021 on the file of respondent No.5 and after completion of investigation, Police filed charge sheet and the case is coming up for Trial. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioner was falsely implicated in the said case and that the offence alleged against him does not relate to breach of public peace and tranquillity. Learned counsel would further submit that except the said case, no cases are pending against the Petitioner and that Petitioner has no criminal antecedents and requested to pass appropriate orders by disposing of this writ petition. Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, would submit that, except one crime, there are no other cases pending against the Petitioner. 3 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 tranquillity=. 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 tranquillity at large. In the case on hand, admittedly, a case in Crime No.161 of 2021 on the file of respondent No.5 is pending against the Petitioner and as admitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, except the said crime, no other cases are pending against him. In such circumstances, continuation of the impugned rowdy sheet against the Petitioner herein would amount to abuse of process of the Court. 1 2000(1) ALD (Crl.) 117 (AP) 4 Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned rowdy sheet opened by the respondent authorities 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 Mjl/* 07.01.2026 5 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Writ Petition No. 22392 of 2024 07.01.2026 Mjl /*