APHC010701562025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 36081/2025 Between: Akkala Subrahanyam Reddy @ Subu ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRAVAN KUMAR NAIDANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- <…to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in opening and continuing the Rowdy Sheet C.No. 32/SDPOBPL/HS/2025 dated 25.03.2025 against the petitioner herein as illegal arbitrary unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to close or quash the Rowdy Sheet C.No.32/SDPOBPL/HS/2025 dated 25.03.2025 against the petitioner and pass such orders….= 2 2. Mr. Sravan Kumar Naidana, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that respondent No.5 opened a rowdy sheet against the petitioner vide impugned proceedings in C.No.32/SDPO-BPL/HS/2025/2T/VC/2017 dated 25.03.2025 and that the said rowdy sheet is still continuing, which is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. He, therefore, prays to set aside the impugned proceedings. Respondent No.4 has filed a counter- affidavit. 3. Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, submits that a case in Crime No.123 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity 8the IPC9) and Sections 3 read with 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for brevity 8the POCSO Act9) was registered by the Station House Officer, Vedullapalli Police Station, Bapatla District, and the same culminated in filing of a charge sheet before the learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 at Tenali in S.C. No.88 of 2023. The said case ended in acquittal on 30.06.2023. 4. It is further submitted that, in order to curb and prevent the unlawful activities of the petitioner in the limits of Vedullapalli Police Station, Bapatla District, the Station House Officer, Vedullapalli Police Station, opened Rowdy Sheet No.696 against the petitioner after obtaining permission from the Sub- Divisional Police Officer, Bapatla Sub Division, vide C.No.32/SDPO- BPL/HS/2025/2T/VC/2017 dated 25.03.2025. 3 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 6. Standing Order 601 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual enables respondent No.5 to open a rowdy sheet or history sheet under the orders of respondent No.4. 7. As per Andhra Pradesh Police Manual Order No.601 the following persons should be classified as suspects and History Sheets shall be opened for them under the order of the Superintendent of Police/SDPO. i. Persons, who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences involving a breach of the peace, disturbances to public order and security. ii. Persons bound over under section 106, 107, 108(1) and 110(e) and (g) of Cr.P.C. iii. Persons who have been convicted more than once in two consecutive years under sections 59 and 70 of the Hyderabad city police Act or under section 3, clause 12 of the AP Town Nuisances Act. iv. Persons who habitually tease women and girls and pass indecent remarks including offences U/sec.354-A,B,C and 354D IPC. v. Persons who have been charge sheeted under the offence of Rape (376, 376 A, C, D, E)., vi. Persons who have been charge sheeted under the offences of POCSO Act, 2012 and Acid Attacks (326A and 326B of IPC). vii. Rowdy sheets for the rowdies residing one police station area but found frequenting the other police stations area, can be maintained at all such police stations. viii. Persons who intimidate by threats or use of physical violence or other unlawful means to part with movable or immovable properties or in the habit of collecting money by extortion from shopkeepers, traders and other residents including <loan sharks=. ix. Persons who incite, instigate and participate in communal/caste or political riots. x. Persons detained under the AP Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, 4 Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 for a period of 6 months or more. xi. Persons on whom charge sheets filed under the offence of assault on Public servants, under Arms Act and such other offences punishable with imprisonment of 2 years or more. xii. Persons on whom charge sheets filed under the offence of murder and attempt to murder (302 and 307). xiii. Persons on whom charge sheets filed under the offence of chain snatching. xiv. Persons who are convicted under the Representation of People Act, 1951 for rigging, carrying away, damaging ballot paper, boxes and polling material. 8. On careful perusal of the Standing Orders, the respondent cannot open or continue a rowdy sheet against the petitioner, inasmuch as the petitioner does not fit into any of the conditions enumerated in the said Standing Orders. The petitioner has not committed any offence mentioned in the Standing Orders. A case in Crime No.123 of 2022 was registered, and the same ended in acquittal on 30.06.2023 before the learned Special Judge. 9. 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. 10. 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 12021 (2) ALT (Crl.) 161 22000(1) ALD (Crl.) 117 (AP) 5 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. 11. 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 was acquitted in Crime No.123 of 2022 before the learned Special Judge. In such circumstances, the continuation of the impugned rowdy sheet amounts to an arbitrary exercise of power and constitutes an abuse of process. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is disposed of, declaring that the continuation of the impugned rowdy sheet against the Petitioner is illegal. The Respondent authorities are directed to forthwith close the said rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner. No order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 28.01.2026 KMS 6 279 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 36081 of 2025 Date: 28.01.2026 KMS