APHC010563432025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 35939/2025 Between: 1. SHAIK USMAN BASHA, S/O. CHINNA MAKTHUM SAHEB, AGED 41 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 18/627-1-2, QUIBLA QUARTERS, YEMMIGANUR, KURNOOI DISTRICT, 518360 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATI. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 3. THE SUBDIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER, KURNOOI SUB-DIVISION, OFFICE OF THE SDPO, KURNOOI CITY AND DISTRICT. 4. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KODUMURU PS, KODUMURU, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VARUN BYREDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The Writ Petition has been filed for the following relief: “…to issue order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in opening and continuation of the rowdy-sheets, being rowdy sheet no. 88 against the Petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, without authority of law, violative of the Andhra Pradesh Police Standing Orders and violative of articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution and consequently quash the rowdy sheet no. 88 against the Petitioner on the file of Kodumuru Police Station, Kurnool District and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the Petitioner liberty in any manner in the interest of justice…” 2. The factual matrix reveals that Crime No.100 of 2017 of Kodumur Police Station was registered against the Petitioner for offences punishable under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for brevity, ‘the POCSO Act.,’) and Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, ‘the IPC.,’). Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid before the competent Court, and the matter was committed to the Sessions Court. After full-fledged trial, the Petitioner was acquitted in POCSO Sessions Case No.32 of 2019 on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool. It is pertinent to note that prior to his acquittal, the Respondent/Police, taking into account his alleged involvement in this case, proceeded to open the impugned rowdy sheet No.88 of 2017 against him. 3. The grievance ventilated by the Petitioner is that despite his acquittal in the case and notwithstanding the fact that no criminal proceedings are presently pending against him before any Court of law, the Respondent/Police have continued the rowdy sheet opened long back ie., in the year 2014. The Petitioner, therefore, seek a declaration that such continuation is illegal and an abuse of process, and pray for quashment thereof. 3 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, per contra, contends that though the Petitioner stand acquitted in the said POCSO case, he has been indulging in unlawful activities, and his conduct is prejudicial to public interest. It is submitted that the rowdy sheet was opened and is being continued in exercise of powers under Standing Order No.601(A) of the A.P.Police Standing Orders, with a view to prevent commission of further offences. 5. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner has been acquitted in the POCSO case. Admittedly, no criminal case is pending against him as of now. In such circumstances, the continuation of the rowdy sheet, which was initially opened when the Petitioner was facing trial for offences under Section 8 of ‘the POCSO Act.,’ and Section 354A of ‘the IPC.,’ is wholly unjustified. The Respondents ought to have closed the rowdy sheet upon acquittal. Mere bald allegations, sans substantive evidence, cannot justify the continuation of such coercive measures. Hence, the impugned action is unsustainable in law. 6. In pari materia, this Court in Tadiboyina Peraiah @ Mahesh v. State of A.P 1 held that when no crimes are pending against a person and no material is produced to demonstrate threat to public peace, continuation of a rowdy sheet under Standing Order No. 601 or 602(2) of the A.P. Police Standing Orders is impermissible. 7. Similarly, in Sunkara Satyanarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh2, a Coordinate Bench categorically observed that rowdy sheets cannot be opened in a casual or mechanical manner. Mere dubbing of an individual as a habitual 1 2021 (2) ALT (Crl.) 161 2 2000(1) ALD (Crl.) 117 (AP) 4 offender is insufficient. The Police must exercise due care and caution before branding a person as a rowdy, and the essential consideration is whether the acts of such person have a tendency to disturb public peace and tranquility. 8. A careful reading of these precedents clearly indicates that the creation or continuation of rowdy sheet requires strict adherence to procedural safeguards and regular review by the statutorily designated authorities. The Respondents are duty-bound to examine whether the alleged misconduct genuinely affects public peace. In the present case, the Petitioner has been acquitted in Crime No.100 of 2017 registered at Kodumur Police Station in Sessions Case No.32 of 2019 on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool, and no other case is pending against him. In such circumstances, the continuation of the impugned rowdy sheet amounts to an arbitrary exercise of power and constitutes an abuse of process. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is disposed of, declaring that the continuation of the impugned rowdy-sheet No.88 of 2017 against the Petitioner/Acccused/Shaik Usman Basha is illegal. The Respondent authorities are directed to forthwith close the said rowdy sheet opened against the Petitioner. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, it is made clear that the Respondent/Police authorities shall be at liberty to invoke the powers conferred under Standing Order No.601 or Standing Order No.602(2) of the A.P.Police Standing Orders against the Petitioner, if it is found that the 5 Petitioner fall within any of the circumstances enumerated in the aforesaid Standing Orders. 11. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 27.01.2026 PRA 6 130 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.35939 of 2025 Date:27.01.2026 PRA