Andhra Pradesh High Court declared Rowdy Sheet, which was open even after the acquittal of Accused as illegal and unconstitutional.
In a writ petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India before a single-judge bench of Andhra Pradesh, the court closed the rowdy sheet which was open even after the accused was acquitted from the matter. The mandamus writ petition was filed by the petitioner praying the court to set aside the rowdy sheet No.198 opened against the petitioner, as illegal and contrary to the Standing Order 742 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Standing Orders.
The facts described in the Writ petition is that in Crime No.17 of 2011 for the offense punishable under Sections 302 r/w.34 of IPC was registered against the petitioner and other accused by Mangalagiri Rural Police. Also, the petitioner along with others were convicted for the offense punishable under Sections 302 r/w.34 of IPC and on an appeal preferred by him, in Criminal Appeal No.275 of 2012, that he was acquitted in the said case. But despite his acquittal, the rowdy sheet bearing No.198, which was opened against the petitioner, was not closed by the respondents. The appeal of the petitioner is that when no case is pending against the petitioner and when there is no other material available with the police justifying the continuation of the said rowdy sheet, that the action of the respondents in continuing the said rowdy sheet against the petitioner is legally unsustainable and it is against to the Police Standing Order 742. Therefore, the petitioner prayed to set aside the said rowdy sheet which was opened against the petitioner.
Against the pleading of the petitioner, the state counsel pleaded that even though no criminal case is now pending against the petitioner, the said rowdy sheet which was opened against the petitioner can be continued as the activities of the petitioner are found to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and as nobody is coming forward to lodge a report against the petitioner.
The court now said that since there are 3 requisite requirements of continuing the rowdy sheet which are:
But, the court observed that the respondent did not produce any material before this Court to show that the activities of the petitioner are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Also, the first condition requires the authority to have material against him but no such material was presented before the court by the respondent which could prove that the activities of the petitioner are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court also held in the case of Tadiboyina Peraiah Mahesh v. the State of A.P. that without there being any material placed to substantiate that the activities of the petitioner are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or that his conduct is of such a nature which is affecting the peace and tranquillity in the area, The Standing Order 602(2) cannot be invoked by the police officials to justify the continuation of the rowdy sheet.
Therefore the court observed that there is absolutely no justification on the part of the respondent police officials in not closing the rowdy sheet and in continuing the said rowdy sheet which was opened against the petitioner even after he was acquitted in a murder case that was registered against him. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed declaring that the action on the part of the respondent police officials in not closing the rowdy sheet bearing No.198 which was opened against the petitioner and continuing the same from time to time without any valid basis, as illegal and unconstitutional. Consequently, the aforesaid rowdy sheet that was opened against the petitioner and which is being extended from time to time is hereby ordered to be closed forthwith.
“This Article Does Not Intend To Hurt The Sentiments Of Any Individual Community, Sect, Or Religion Etcetera. This Article Is Based Purely On The Authors Personal Views And Opinions In The Exercise Of The Fundamental Right Guaranteed Under Article 19(1)(A) And Other Related Laws Being Force In India, For The Time Being. Further, despite all efforts that have been made to ensure the accuracy and correctness of the information published, Legal Xpress shall not be responsible for any errors caused due to human error or otherwise.”
 2021(2) L.S. 14 (A.P.)