Rowdy Sheet Not Sustainable Where Alleged Crimes Don't Disturb Public Peace & Tranquility: AP High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that a rowdy sheet cannot be opened mechanically and the Police has to examine, with due care, whether the crime registered against an accused comes within the purview of disturbing peace and tranquility.A Single Judge Bench of Dr. Justice Vankata Jyothirmai Pratapa explained,“…rowdy sheet cannot be opened mechanically and not in a casual...
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that a rowdy sheet cannot be opened mechanically and the Police has to examine, with due care, whether the crime registered against an accused comes within the purview of disturbing peace and tranquility.
A Single Judge Bench of Dr. Justice Vankata Jyothirmai Pratapa explained,
“…rowdy sheet cannot be opened mechanically and not in a casual manner. In opening a rowdy sheet it is essential that, due care has to be taken by the Respondent Police and, every year the committee has to review whether the rowdy sheet has to be continued or not. The other aspect that has to be seen by the Respondent Police is whether the crimes which are registered against the Accused would come within the purview of disturbing the public peace and tranquility at large.”
The Court was dealing with a writ petition challenging the proceedings issued by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Eluru (Respondent 3) through which the petitioners were repeatedly insisted to appear before the Station House Officer (Respondent 4) for being bound over maintenance of peace and good behaviour. The petitioners, who were accused under Section 307 [attempt to murder] read with Section 34 [common intention] of IPC, challenged the said proceedings on the ground that they were false implicated, and the offences alleged against them did not relate to breach of peace and tranquility.
The State submitted that there were no pending cases against the petitioners except one crime.
The Court preferred to the case of Sunkara Satyanarayana Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, where it was held that dubbing as person as a habitual offender is not sufficient and due care has to be taken by the Police before characterising a person as rowdy in examining whether the acts committed have the tendency to disturb public peace.
In light of this, the Single Judge held,
“In the case on hand, admittedly, a case in Crime No.115 of 2021 on the file of I Town Police Station, Eluru for the offence under Section 307 read with 34 IPC is pending against the Petitioners and as admitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, except the said crime, no other cases are pending against the Petitioners. In such circumstances, continuation of the impugned rowdy sheet against the Petitioners herein would amount to abuse of process of the Court.”
Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 1892/2022
Case Title: NAGIREDDI SATISH KUMAR and ors. v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH and ors