SURITI RAMULU Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE MAHABOOBNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ petition was filed by the petitioner to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in opening a rowdy-sheet against the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to delete the petitioner's name in the rowdy-sheet and pass such further orders.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was resident of Marikal village of Dhanwada Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District, and he was an agriculturist. In addition to that doing some civil contracts in Goa since a long time and he was also the Block Congress President of Devarkadra which falls in Amarchinta Assembly Constituency. He further submitted that one Satyanarayana Goud of Marikal, belonging to Telugu Desam Party, resides in their village, that there is a lane in between the house of said Satyanarayana Goud and S. Veeranna being used as passage for about 20 families living behind the houses of the said two persons and the houses of those two persons face towards the main road. The said Satyanarayana Goud, with an evil idea of blocking the way tried to open a door into the lane by constructing steps and a civil case in OS No.15 of 1998 was filed by one S. Ramulu S/o. Savarappa, before the District Munsif, Narayanpet for injunction against the said Satyanarayana Goud and the other affected parties also filed their affidavits in the said suit and the District Munsif granted temporary injunction restraining him from proceeding with the construction and the said suit is pending. Thereafter, Satyanarayana Goud, on 11-6-1998 gave a complaint to the Marikal Police stating that on 8-6-1998 while he was raising the level of the flooring at his house, the petitioner and eight others tress passed into his house and beat him and a case in Cr. No.44 of 1998 for the offences under Sections 427, 448, 342, 323 read with 34 IPC was registered. He further stated that though the petitioner was nothing to do with the civil litigation between Satyanarayana Goud and other residents he was shown as accused No.1 in the above criminal case. The said Satyanarayana Goud also gave another complaint which was registered as Cr. No.39 of 1999 on the file of Police Marikal for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 452, 307 read with 147 IPC against eight persons, who figure as the accused in Cr. No.44 of 1998 including the petitioner herein. It is further stated by the petitioner that he was Sarpanch of Marikal village and also Block Congress President of Deverakadra, that due to the local politics and at the instance of local MLA the respondents have opened a rowdy-sheet against him, opening of the rowdy-sheet was also published in the local newspapers against the petitioner. It is also stated that the police have served summons to the petitioner to appear and answer a charge under Section 107 Cr.PC in Cr. No.71 of 1999 on 21-8-1999 at 11.00 a.m., before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Narayanpet. Except the above three cases, there are no criminal cases registered against him. He further submitted that the requirements under Order 742 of the Police Standing Order for opening rowdy-sheet against the petitioner are not at all in existence. Therefore, the action of the respondents is against Articles 14, 19 and 21 of Indian Constitution. Therefore, the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking the above said relief.

(3.) In reply to the above averments made by the petitioner, the respondents filed counter stating that the petitioner is an unsocial element indulging in offences causing breach of peace and tranquility in the locality, that besides the three offences, which the petitioner mentioned in his affidavit, the respondent added Cr. No.7 of 1998 under Section 107 Cr.PC before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Narayanpet. They further stated that after conducting lengthy and detailed investigation and after satisfying that there are prima facie cases made out against the petitioner, charge-sheets were filed in the respective Courts, that in view of the involvement of the petitioner in the criminal cases and in view of the fact that he is causing breach of peace, rowdy-sheet was opened on 25-6-1998 as per the instructions of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Narayanpet. They further stated that under the guise of his political status, the petitioner was indulging in offences causing breach of peace and therefore, the rowdy-sheet was opened to check his movement which required to be closely watched in view of the ensuing elections in the State to Parliament and Assembly. As the petitioner was involved in three cases including a case in which he was bound over on 7-2-1998, it is not desirable to close the rowdy-sheet. It is also stated that there was no harassment to the petitioner nor was he deprived of his personal liberty.