Syed Imran vs The State of Telangana

HIGH COURT FOR THE ST rsp""iii 6,I5,"oj jf}fji"",flf A r H yD ERA BAo [/ONDAY, THE rw o r H o ulf f; I x, BT?',, p,.

Ifi,T * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITtoN 351180F 20 NO: 2 Between: Ri."fl"flliii,.?i",.:i,,s":5:5 $;{il?!fl,,:i f,i*j:J.: x,lii} 33;,3i;1li o=,11?,,3,1.", AND ...PETITIONER ,l llfr.:"f::r?,ioll?"T"' Rep bv its Principar secretary (Home), secretariar 2.

The Superintendent of police, Sangareddy District. a [lri,.rauPu,, Superintendent of police, Sangareddy Division, Sanga Reddy 4.

The Station House Officer, Sdngareddy Town, Sangareddy District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue order, or orders, more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein in opening the rowdy sheet against the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, in violation of articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia, in violation of principles of natural justice besides law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in similar matters and consequently direct the respondents herein to close the rowdy sheet which was open against the petitioner forthwith. t PRESENT lA NO: 1 OF 2022 petition under S ection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances Stated in the affidavit frled in su1 ,port of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents here n to close the rowdy sheet which was open against the petitioner in a year br,st known to the respondents forthwith pending disposal of the above writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KATTKA RAVINDER REDDY Counsel for the ResSondents: AGp FOR HOME The Court made the .ollowing: ORDER I I I I I I THE HON'BLE SRI ]USTICE B.

VI]AYSEN REDDY WRIT P ETITIO N o.35118 of 2022 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

2. r Home.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the rowdy sheet was opened against the petitioner on the basis of five cases.

3.

In the counter filed by the respondent No.3, it is stated that the petitioner was involved in the following crimes: 1.

Cr.No.322 of 2009 registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 307 read with 149 IPC with the Sangareddy Town Police Station.

Cr.No.259 of 2Ol2 registered for the orfences under Sections 324, 427 , 504, 506 read with 34 IPC with the Sangareddy Town Police Station.

Cr.No.29 of 2013 registered for the offences under Sections 353, 504 and 506 IPC with the Sangareddy Town Police Station.

4.

Cr.No.49 of 2013 registered for the offences under Sections 447 and 427 IPC with the Sangareddy Town Police Station.

5.

Cr.No.113 of 2013 registered for the offence under Section 307 read with 34 IPC' 4.

It is further stated that out of the aforesaid five cases' four crimes ended in acquittal and one crime ie' Cr'No'259 of 2Ol2 l ended in comI romise.

The rowdy sheet is being renewed from time to time and tt e activitibs of the petitioner are under surveillance of the responder t police.

The acquittal of the petitioner was due to the witnesses tur ling hostile.

There is no possibility of false implication of the petitic ner in the criminal cases.

The continuation of rowdy sheet againsl the petitioner is not in violation of right of privacy and other fundanental rights under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution )f India.

Learn:d counsel for the petitioner submitted that the last case againsl the petitioner was closed in the year 2013.

The same is not dispr ted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

6.

As a I the five cases wherein the petitioner was involved ended in ; cquittal/compromise, the continuation of rowdy sheet even after nine years is totally unjustified.

It is not the case oF the responden police that the petitioner was invorved in other criminar cases in tl-e past nine years. ine years.

Moreover, as there is no case pending against th: petitioner, it would be arbitrary on the part of the responden: police to continue the rowdy sheet against the petitioner.

Her ce, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed t) close the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if There shall be no order as to costs. any, sha ll stand closeo_ SD/- T.

SRINIVAS i DEPUTY REGISTRAR I SECTION O*FICCN //TRUE COPY// To, 'l .

T.he Principal secretary (Home), state of rerangana, secretariat Buirdings, Hyderabad.

The Superintendent of Police, Sangareddy District_ 3.

The.Deputy Superintendent of police, Sangareddy Division, Sanga Reddy District.

The Station House Officer, Sangareddy Town, Sangareddy District.

One CC to SRI KATIKA RAVTNDER REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl 6.

Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 7.

Two CD Copies.

8.

One Spare Copy t\i4P .

GJPA^-- I.{IGH COURT D,AT ED:1011012022 10 0ff ?$I2 ORDER WP.No.35118 of 2022 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITI{OUT COSTS \o tk*r'-