UMESH SINGHANIYA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for petitioner and also the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. This writ petition is filed, seeking declaration by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in opening and continuing the rowdy sheet against the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary and in violation of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) It is the case of petitioner that he is a resident of Bhansi Bazar, Charminar, Hyderabad and he hails from a respectable family. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that he was falsely implicated in Crime No. 41 of 2011, which was registered on 04.02.2011 as one among the other 10 accused, who were charged for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 307, 324, 323 r/w. 149 of IPC and under Section 25(1)(a) of Arms Act, 1959, on the file of P.S. Sultan Bazar. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of petitioner that by falsely implicating him in the said case, a rowdy sheet is opened against him illegally and arbitrarily. It is stated that the opening of rowdy sheet against him is against the Police Standing Orders.

(3.) Respondent No. 5 has filed counter affidavit. In the counter, while denying the allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner is a rowdy element and is involved in Crime No. 41 of 2011 registered on the file of P.S. Sultan Bazar for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 307, 302, 324, 323 r/w. 149 of IPC and under Section 25(1)(a) of Arms Act, 1959. It is stated that after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed on 30th of July 2011 on the file of II-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally. It is stated that in view of involvement of petitioner in the aforesaid crime, after obtaining necessary permission from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sultan Bazar, a rowdy sheet is opened against the petitioner and is presently transferred to Charminar Police Station, as he is residing in the limits of Charminar P.S. In the counter, it is stated that as the petitioner is facing trial in the aforesaid criminal case, closing the rowdy sheet against the petitioner at this juncture will result in hardship to the general public, and to have a close watch on the movements of the petitioner, it is necessary to continue the rowdy sheet against him.