APHC010695262025 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: 36107/2025 Between: MALLIPATI ANIL BABU, S/O M.VIJAY SEKHAR,AGED 33 YEARS,R/O M.R.O COLONY,MUTHUKUR.SPSR NELLORE,ANDHRA PRADESH,PIN 524344 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SUPERENDENT OF POLICE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 3. THE SUB DIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER, SPSR NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MUTHUKUR POLICE STATION,SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: SATHEESH KUMAR EERLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The Writ Petition has been filed 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 in opening and continuing rowdy sheet against me and paying domiciliary visits to my house asking repeatedly to appear before them as illegal, irregular, without jurisdiction and violative of provisions of Andhra Pradesh Police Standing Orders and offends articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently quash the rowdy sheet No.28 in Muthukur Police station ,SPSR Nellore District and not to interfere with my liberty in any manner in the interest of justice…” 2. The factual matrix reveals that Crime No.152 of 2014 of Muthukur Police Station was registered against the Petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 354, 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, ‘the IPC.,’) and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for brevity, ‘the POCSO Act.,’). 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 Sc.Spl No.17 of 2015 vide order dated 30.08.2017 on the file of the learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge, S.P.S.R.Nellore. 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.28 of 2019 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 2019. The 3 Petitioner, therefore, seek a declaration that such continuation is illegal and an abuse of process, and pray for quashment thereof. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, per contra, contends that though the Petitioner stand acquitted in the said 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 above said 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 Sections 354, 366 of ‘the IPC.,’ and Section 8 of ‘the POCSO Act.,’ 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. 1 2021 (2) ALT (Crl.) 161 4 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 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.152 of 2014 of Muthukur Police Station in Sc.Spl No.17 of 2015 vide order dated 30.08.2017 on the file of the learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge, S.P.S.R.Nellore, 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.28 of 2019 against the Petitioner/Accused/Mallipati Anil Babu is illegal. The Respondent authorities are directed to forthwith close the said rowdy sheet opened against the Petitioner. 2 2000(1) ALD (Crl.) 117 (AP) 5 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 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 6 268 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.36107 of 2025 Date:27.01.2026 PRA