APHC010691512025 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 Nos: 35773, 35798 & 35878 of 2025 1.WRIT PETITION NO: 35773/2025 Between: PADALA MANIKANTA KEDAR REDDY, S/O. RAMACHANDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, MALE, R/O. D.NO. 1-87/A, ARAVALLI VILLAGE, ATTILI MANDAL WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, PINCODE - 534 230. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522238 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, BHIMAVARAM - 534 201. 3. THE SUBDIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER, TADEPALLIGUDEM SUB- DIVISION, ATTILI, BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT - 534 101. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, ATTILI POLICE STATION, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT - 534 134. 5. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ATTILI POLICE STATION, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT - 534 134. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR HOME 2.WRIT PETITION NO: 35798/2025 Between: KONDRU LAKSHMI NARAYANA, S/O. SUBRAHMANYAM, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, MALE, R/O. D.NO. 17-86/2, ATTILI VILLAGE MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, PINCODE-534 134. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, BHIMAVARAM - 534 201. 3. 3. THE SUBDIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER, TADEPALLIGUDEM SUB- DIVISION, ATTILI, BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT - 534 101. 4. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, ATTILI POLICE STATION, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT - 534 134. 5. 5. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ATTILI POLICE STATION, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT - 534 134. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 3 3.WRIT PETITION NO: 35878/2025 Between: PADALA MURALI KRISHNA KEDAR REDDY @ MURARI KRISHNA KEDAR REDDY, S/O. RAMACHANDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, MALE, R/O. D.NO. 1-87/A, ARAVALLI VILLAGE, ATTILI MANDAL WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, PINCODE - 534 230. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO HOME DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 522238 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, BHIMAVARAM - 534 201. 3. THE SUBDIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER, TADEPALLIGUDEM SUB- DIVISION, ATTILI, BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT - 534 101. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, ATTILI POLICE STATION, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT - 534 134. 5. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ATTILI POLICE STATION, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT - 534 134. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR HOME 4 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION Nos: 35773, 35798 & 35878 of 2025 COMMON JUDGMENT: These three writ petitions, arising out of a similar cause of action, of course, filed by different Petitioners who were arraigned as Accused Nos.1, 3 & 4 in a Sessions Case, have been heard and disposed of by way of this common Judgment. 2. The Writ Petition No.35773 of 2025 has been filed seeking 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 Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in opening and continuation of suspect sheet/history sheet in sheet No.23/2015 on the file of the respondent No.5 police station inspite of acquittal in S.C.No.123 of 2013 on the file of the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gudivada, Krishna District without there being any grounds or reasons as illegal, irregular, arbitrary and violative of the provisions of the BNSS and also offends Article 14, 21 of the Constitution of the India and Andhra Pradesh Police Standing Orders and consequently quash the suspect sheet/history sheet in sheet No.23/2015 on the file of respondent No.5 police station and to direct the respondents not to interfere with the personal life and liberty of the petitioner in any manner in the interest of justice….” 3. The Writ Petition No.35798 of 2025 has been filed seeking the following relief:- “…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in opening and continuation of suspect sheet/history sheet in sheet No.20/2015 on the file of the respondent No.5 police station inspite of acquittal in S.C.No.123 of 2013 on the file of the XI Additional DistrictSessions Judge Krishna District without there being any grounds one Gudivada, or reasons as illegal, irregular, arbitrary and violative of the provisions of the BNSS and also offends Article 14, 21 of the Constitution of the India and Andhra Pradesh Police Standing Orders and consequently quash the suspect sheet history sheet in 5 sheet No.20/2015 on the file of respondent No.5 police station and to direct the respondents not to interfere with the liberty of the petitioner in any personal life and in the interest of justice….” 4. The Writ Petition No.35878 of 2025 has been filed seeking 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 Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in opening and continuation of suspect sheet/history sheet in sheet No.22/2015 on the file of the respondent No.5 police station inspite of acquittal in S.C.No.123 of 2013 on the file of the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gudivada, Krishna District without there being any grounds or reasons as illegal, irregular, arbitrary and violative of the provisions of the BNSS and also offends Article 14, 21 of the Constitution of the India and Andhra Pradesh Police Standing Orders and consequently quash the suspect sheet/history sheet in sheet No.22/2015 on the file of respondent No.5 police station and to direct the respondents not to interfere with the personal life and liberty of the petitioner in any manner in the interest of justice….” 5. The erudite submissions of Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners juxtaposed against the expositions tendered by Sri P.Ajay Babu, the learned Assistant Government Pleader espousing the Respondents' cause, have been accorded meticulous audience by this Court. 6. Unravelling the factual conspectus, it emerges ineluctably that Crime No.123 of 2013 of Kalidindi Police Station was instituted against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 3 & 4, conjoined with sundry co-accused, imputing offences under Sections 120-B, 395, 397, 440, 324, 216-A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity, ‘the IPC’). Post the culmination of scrupulous investigations, charge sheet was duly proffered before the tribunal of competent jurisdiction, whereupon the proceedings were committed to the Sessions Court. Following a rigorous and exhaustive trial, the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 3 & 4 were acquitted in Sessions Case No.123 of 6 2013 on the file of the learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gudivada, Krishna (for brevity, ‘the learned Trial Court’). Notably antecedent to this vindication, the Respondent/Police, predicated upon the Petitioners' ostensible complicity in heinous prosecutions and sundry imputed deleterious propensities, precipitously inaugurated the impugned rowdy sheets. 7. The grievance of the Petitioners is that, despite their acquittal in the Sessions Case and notwithstanding the fact that no criminal proceedings are presently pending against them before any Court of law, the Respondent/Police have continued Rowdy Sheet No.20 of 2015 against Accused No.1, Rowdy Sheet No.22 of 2015 against Accused No.3, and Rowdy Sheet No.23 of 2015 against Accused No.4, all of which were opened in connection with S.C.No.123 of 2013 on the file of the learned trial court in the year 2015. The Petitioners, therefore, seek a declaration that such continuation is illegal and amounts to an abuse of process, and pray for quashment thereof. 8. Per contra, Sri P.Ajay Babu, the learned Assistant Government Pleader stoutly postulates that, albeit the Petitioners' acquittal in this case, their recidivist dalliance in nefarious peregrinations imperils the denizens of the locale, engendering a palpable menace to societal equilibrium. It is contended that the rowdy sheets were inaugurated, and are tenaciously maintained, pursuant to the plenary ambit of Standing Order No.601(A) of the Andhra Pradesh Police Standing Orders, actuated by the imperious exigency to forestall prospective transgressions. 7 9. It is not in dispute that the Petitioners have been acquitted in the heinous prosecution. Admittedly, no criminal case is pending against them as of now. In such circumstances, the continuation of the rowdy sheets, which were initially opened when the Petitioners were facing trial for offences under Sections 120-B, 395, 397, 440, 324, 216-A read with 34 of ‘the IPC.,’ is wholly unjustified. The Respondents ought to have closed the rowdy sheets upon acquittal. The vague assertion that the Petitioners' activities are prejudicial to public interest and pose threat to the locality is unsupported by any cogent material. Mere bald allegations, sans substantive evidence, cannot justify the continuation of such coercive measures. Hence, the impugned action is unsustainable in law. 10. In pari materia, this Court in Tadiboyina Peraiah @ Mahesh v. State of A.P1 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. 11. 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 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. 12021 (2) ALT (Crl.) 161 22000(1) ALD (Crl.) 117 (AP) 8 12. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid precedents makes it manifest that opening or continuation of rowdy sheets requires strict adherence to procedural safeguards and annual review by the competent committee. The Respondents are duty-bound to assay whether the imputed delinquencies veritably impinge upon public serenity. In the instant matrix, the acquittal of Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 3 & 4 in Crime No.123 of 2013 of Kalidindi Police Station culminated in Sessions Case No.123 of 2013 on the file of the learned Trial Court coupled with the sterility of pendant prosecutions, renders the impugned continuance an archetype of arbitrariness and a flagrant abuse of discretionary dominion. 13. For the aforenoted inexorable rationale, the Writ Petitionsaredisposed of, declaring that the continuation of the impugned Rowdy Sheet No.20 of 2015 against Accused No.1/Kondru Lakshmi Narayana @ Tunga, Rowdy Sheet No.22 of 2015 against Accused No.3/Padala Murali Krishna Kedar Reddy, and Rowdy Sheet No.23 of 2015 against Accused No.4/Padala Manikanta Kedar Reddy is illegal. The Respondent authorities are directed to forthwith close the said rowdy sheets opened against the Petitioners. 14. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are 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 Petitioners, if it is found that the Petitioners fall within any of the circumstances enumerated in the aforesaid Standing Orders. 9 15. In the result, these Writ Petitions are 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 10 142 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION Nos: 35773, 35798 & 35878 of 2025 Date: 27.01.2026 PRA