Page 1 of 8

This Product is Licensed to M. NAGA SHYAM KIRAN (M.N.S.K.), Advocate, Anantapuramu

Yerramseti Venugopal Rao VS State of Andhra Pradesh

2020 0 Supreme(AP) 20
2020 2 ALD(Cri) 1048

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI

U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.
Yerramseti Venugopal Rao - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition Nos.17667, 17668, 18301 & 18305 of 2019 COMMON
Decided On : 12-05-2020

ANDHRA PRADESH POLICE MANUAL ORDER : O.602 INDIAN PENAL CODE

: S.302, S.307, S.323, S.324, S.34, S.342, S.364(a), S.506 UTTAR PRADESH
GANGSTERS AND ANTI SOCIAL ACTIVITIES PREVENTION ACT : S.2(c)
ANDHRA PRADESH GENERAL CLAUSES ACT : S.3(35) UTTAR PRADESH
GENERAL CLAUSES ACT : S.13 SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED
TRIBES PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES ACT : S.3(1)(r)(s)

Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 342, 364-A, 324 & 506 r/w 34 – Seeking for writ of
mandamus declaring the action of respondents 2 & 3 in opening rowdy sheets against
them (vide H.S.Nos.837, 838, 839 and 840) as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the
provisions of Order 601 of the A.P. Police Manual and for a consequential direction
to close the rowdy sheets – Held, there is every chance that he may gain over the
witnesses and secondly, due to fear of the petitioners no one has turned up to the
police station to lodge any fresh complaints. It must be said that first ground is not
envisaged in Order 602. Even otherwise if the petitioners made any attempt to win
over the witnesses in Cr.No.304/2019, the concerned police can report to the Court
where the case is pending for cancellation of the bail of the petitioners or for taking
other suitable action. The second ground is concerned, except alleging that no victim
has turned up to the police station to lodge any fresh complaints for fear of
petitioners, no plausible material is placed before the Court in that regard. It is
incomprehensible as to how the respondent police came to know that the petitioners
committed some other offences when none of the victims came forward to the police
station to lodge fresh complaints. Thus, both the grounds shown are not sustainable
in the eye of law - Writ petitions are disposed

Facts of the Case;

Petitioners were arrayed as accused for the offences under Sections 342, 364-A, 324
& 506 r/w 34 IPC, on the allegation that the petitioners and some others approached
the husband of de facto complainant on 26.04.2019 and kidnapped him from his
house and wrongfully confined him. During the course of investigation, the offence
under Section 307 IPC was also added against them. The petitioners have been
contending that a false case has been foisted against them

Finding of the Court:

 Page 2 of 8

There is every chance that he may gain over the witnesses and secondly, due to fear
of the petitioners no one has turned up to the police station to lodge any fresh
complaints. It must be said that first ground is not envisaged in Order 602. Even
otherwise if the petitioners made any attempt to win over the witnesses in
Cr.No.304/2019, the concerned police can report to the Court where the case is
pending for cancellation of the bail of the petitioners or for taking other suitable
action. The second ground is concerned, except alleging that no victim has turned up
to the police station to lodge any fresh complaints for fear of petitioners, no plausible
material is placed before the Court in that regard. It is incomprehensible as to how
the respondent police came to know that the petitioners committed some other
offences when none of the victims came forward to the police station to lodge fresh
complaints. Thus, both the grounds shown are not sustainable in the eye of law.

Result: Writ petitions are disposed

Cases referred:

Gita v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1965) 35 AWR 564 : MANU/UP/0198/1964

Rinku Alias Hukku v. State of U.P., CDJ 2000 All HC 061
State of Maharashtra v. Bhakti Vedanta Book Trust, (2013) 4 SCC 676
Tarlochan Dev Sharma v. State of Punjab, (2001) 6 SCC 260

Point of Law: Merely because a suspect/rowdy, having a history sheet, is not figuring as
accused in the previous 5 years after the last case in which he was involved, it should not
preclude the SP/DCP/CP to continue his history sheet if SP/DCP/CP is of the considered
view that his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or one affecting
peace and tranquility in the area or the victims are not coming forward to give complaint
against him on account of threat from him

Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner : N. Ashwani Kumar

ORDER :

The petitioners in W.P.No.17667/2019, 17668/2019, 18301/2019 & 18305/2019 seek for

writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents 2 & 3 in opening rowdy sheets
against them (vide H.S.Nos.837, 838, 839 and 840) as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the
provisions of Order 601 of the A.P. Police Manual and for a consequential direction to
close the rowdy sheets.

2. The petitioners’ case is thus:

(a) The petitioner in W.P.No.17667/2019 is an Ex-Sarpanch of Gorantla Village, Guntur

District. The petitioner in W.P.No.17668/2019 is the son of petitioner in
W.P.No.17667/2019. He completed his Master of Science in Analytical Chemistry from
Governors State University, Illinois, USA in the year 2008 and looking after the family
 Page 3 of 8

business of his father.

(b) Due to political vendetta, their opponents have implicated the petitioners in some false
criminal cases. In Cr.No.304/2019 of Nallapadu P.S. the petitioners were arrayed as
accused for the offences under Sections 342, 364-A, 324 & 506 r/w 34 IPC, on the
allegation that the petitioners and some others approached the husband of de facto
complainant on 26.04.2019 and kidnapped him from his house and wrongfully confined
him. During the course of investigation, the offence under Section 307 IPC was also added
against them. The petitioners have been contending that a false case has been foisted
against them. However, they cooperated with the Investigating Agency and subsequently
charge sheet was filed before the learned Special Mobile Magistrate, Guntur and the same
is pending.

(c) While so, the petitioner in W.P.No.17667/2019 was implicated in another case also.
Cr.No.688/2018 was registered by the police of Nallapadu P.S. against him and others for
the offences under Sections 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Though the petitioner
cooperated with the Investigating Agency, a false case was foisted against him and charge
sheet was filed before the learned Special Mobile Magistrate, Guntur and the same is
pending.

(d) While the above case is pending, to their surprise and chagrin, respondent No.2 opened
rowdy sheet against the petitioners. It is alleged that the petitioner in W.P.No.17667/2019
was involved in 16 different crimes. It is submitted that except Cr.No.688/2018 and
Cr.No.304/2019 no other crimes are pending as on today. All the other cases were either
ended in acquittal or closed. Hence, under Order 601 of the A.P. Police Manual, the 2nd
respondent is not legally justified to open rowdy sheet against the petitioners as they are
not habitual offenders as per the said order.

(e) The petitioner in W.P.No.18301/2019 is a resident of Gorantla, Guntur, and has passed
intermediate and due to poor financial conditions of his family he discontinued his studies
and currently employed in the office of M/s. Shapoorji & Pallonji, a construction company
engaged with the works in the capital area of Amaravati. He was falsely implicated in
Cr.No.304/2019 along with other accused. He is arrayed as A7. Initially in the complaint
and FIR he was not shown as accused, but later he was added. When the said matter is
pending, respondent No.2 opened a rowdy sheet against him (H.S.No.839) though he was
involved in only one crime.

(f) The petitioner in W.P.No.18305/2019 is the resident of Gorantla Village and he is

eking out livelihood by plying auto in Gorantla, Guntur. He was falsely implicated in
Cr.No.304/2019 and arrayed as A8. Initially he was not shown as accused in the complaint
and FIR, but was added subsequently. While the matter was pending 2nd respondent
opened a rowdy sheet against him (H.S.No.840) though he is involved in a single crime.

Hence, the writ petitions.

3. The 2nd respondent filed counters and opposed both the writ petitions inter alia
contending thus:

(a) The petitioner in W.P.No.17667/2019 was involved in 16 crimes apart from

Cr.No.688/2018 and Cr.No.304/2019. Cr.No.304/2019 relates to an offence under Section
 Page 4 of 8

307 IPC. The other petitioners in W.P.No.17668/2019, 18301/2019 & 18305/2019 are
involved in Cr.No.304/2019. Since it is an offence for an attempt to commit murder, to
curb their unlawful activities the then Sub-Divisional Police Officer vide proceedings in
C.No.27/SDPO-SD/2019, C.No.28/SDPO-SD/2019, C.No.29/SDPO-SD/2019 and
C.No.30/SDPO-SD/2019 dated 09.05.2019 opened rowdy sheets against the petitioners
and after renewal from time-to-time, the same are being continued on the rolls of
Nallapadu P.S. As per the revised A.P. Police Manual as approved under G.O.Ms.No.19
dated 14.02.2017, rowdy sheet can be opened against the person against whom charge
sheet is filed under offence of murder and attempt to commit murder. The police Standing
Order 602(2) provides for continuation of a rowdy sheet in the circumstances mentioned in
the said Order. Unless a close watch is being maintained against the petitioners, there is
every chance that they may repeat the offences. Further, due to the fear of the petitioners
no one is turning up to the Police Station to lodge fresh complaints. Hence, in view of the
public interest and also the interest of residents where the petitioners are residing, the
rowdy sheets are continued against the petitioners. If rowdy sheets are closed, there is
every chance for them to win over the witnesses. The allegations in the writ petitions are
false and hence, the writ petitions may be dismissed.

4. Heard Sri N.Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners, and learned Government
Pleader for Home representing the respondents.

5. The main plank of argument of the learned counsel for petitioners is that as per the
revised Order 601 of the A.P. Police Manual, the police can open rowdy sheet against the
person only when he is charge sheeted more than once under the offence of murder under
Section 302 IPC or attempt to commit murder under Section 307 IPC or both. Referring to
Serial No.12 of Order 601 he would strenuously argue that the word “charge sheets”
which is a plural noun would indicate that more than one charge sheet is required to be
filed against a person either under Section 302 or 307 IPC or both. Mere filing of one
charge sheet either under Section 302 or under 307 IPC against a person, will not confer
power on police under Order 601 to open a rowdy sheet. In the instant case, he would
point out, all the petitioners were involved only in one crime i.e., Cr.No.304/2019 for the
offence under Section 307 IPC among others. Therefore, the police are not legally justified
to open a rowdy sheet. He would vehemently argue that the plural noun “charge sheets”
cannot be interpreted as singular noun “charge sheet” as contended by the other side. In
this context, he relied upon State of Maharashtra v. Bhakti Vedanta Book Trust (2013) 4
SCC 676, Tarlochan Dev Sharma v. State of Punjab (2001) 6 SCC 260, Gita v. State of
Uttar Pradesh (1965) 35 AWR 564 : MANU/UP/0198/1964. He would further argue that
in view of the fact that the petitioner in W.P.No.17667/2019 is an Ex-Sarpanch and
actively involved in politics, his rivals implicated him and other petitioners in a false case
and at any rate, since charge sheet has already been filed before the learned Special Mobile
Magistrate, Guntur, there is no question of petitioners either meddling with the
investigation or tampering the evidence. Learned counsel would submit that if really they
try to win over the witnesses, the prosecution can bring the said fact to the knowledge of
the concerned Court and seek for cancellation of their bail. Thus, absolutely there is no
plausible reason for opening a rowdy sheet against the petitioners. He thus prayed to allow
the writ petitions.

6. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Home would argue that as per the amended
Order 601, rowdy sheets can be opened in respect of those persons against whom even a
 Page 5 of 8

single charge sheet is filed for the grave offences like murder, attempt to commit murder,
rape etc. Referring to Serial Nos.5, 6 & 11 of Order 601, he would submit that since the
offences referred in those Serial numbers are grave ones, it is mentioned therein that if any
person is charge sheeted for such offences, rowdy sheet may be opened against such
person. He further argued, since murder and attempt to commit murder are also grave
offences, filing of single charge sheet was considered sufficient to open rowdy sheet.
Referring to the term “charge sheets” appearing in Serial No.12, he would argue that the
said plural noun refers to two distinct offences i.e., murder and attempt to commit murder.
That does not mean one should be involved in two murders or two attempt to commit
murders or one murder and one attempt to commit murder and multiple charge sheets
should be filed against him for opening a rowdy sheet. He would reiterate that the plural
noun “charge sheets" was employed because two different offences are referred in that
sentence.

(a) He alternatively argued that even otherwise, the plural noun “charge sheets” can also
be interpreted as singular noun “charge sheet” by taking the aid of Section 3(35) of the
A.P. General Clauses Act, 1891, which facilitates that a singular number shall include
plural and vice versa. He would submit that in that view, a single charge sheet for the
offence of murder or attempt to murder will empower the police to open rowdy sheet. He
placed reliance on Rinku Alias Hukku v. State of U.P. CDJ 2000 All HC 061 to submit
that in that case, the plural noun “activities” was interpreted as singular noun “activity”
with the aid of Section 13 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904. He thus prayed to
dismiss the writ petitions.

7. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in the writ petitions to allow?

8. Point: I gave my anxious consideration to the above respective arguments. Admittedly,

the 2nd respondent issued proceedings in C.No.27/SDPO-SD/2019, C.No.28/SDPO-
SD/2019, C.No.29/SDPO-SD/2019 and C.No.30/SDPO-SD/2019 dated 09.05.2019 as per
which rowdy sheets were opened against the petitioners for their involvement in
Cr.No.304/2019 under Section 307, 342, 364-A, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC of Nallapadu PS. It
should be noted that though it is mentioned in the counter that the petitioner in
W.P.No.17667/2019 was involved in 16 other offences, their status i.e., whether charge
sheets were filed and cases ended in conviction or acquittal is not mentioned. The main
thrust in the proceedings dated 09.05.2019 is in respect of Cr.No.304/2019 alone against
all the petitioners. Added to it, argument is advanced by the learned Government Pleader
in the lines that single charge sheet in respect of an offence of murder or attempt to murder
is sufficient to open a rowdy sheet. Therefore, these writ petitions are considered and
decided accordingly.

9. The Government of Andhra Pradesh have, vide G.O.Ms.No.19, Home (Legal. II)
Department dated 14.02.2017 revised the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual as submitted by
the Director General of Police, A.P. Order 601 is germane for our consideration. It reads
thus:

601. The following persons may be classified as rowdies and Rowdy Sheets (Form 80)
may be opened for them under the orders of the SP/DCP and ACP/SDPO.

S. No. Classification of Persons

1 Persons who habitually commit, attempt to commit or
abet the commission of, offences involving a breach
 Page 6 of 8

of the peace, disturbance to public order and security,

besides offences under chapter VIII, XV, XVII,
XVIII and XXII of IPC
2 Persons bound over us 106, 107, 108 (1)(i) and 110
(e) and (g) of Cr.P.C.
3 Persons who have been convicted more than once in
two consecutive years or under section 3, clause 12,
of the AP Towns Nuisances Act, 1889
4 Persons who habitually tease women and girls and
pass indecent remarks, including offences us 354A,
B, C & 354 D IPC
5 Persons who have been charge sheeted under the
offence of Rape (376, 376 A, C, D, E). (Entry to be
made in Sex Offenders Register also).
6 Persons who have been charge sheeted under the
offences of POCSO Act, 2012 and Acid attacks
(326A and 326B of IPC)
7 Rowdy sheets for the rowdies residing in one Police
Station area but found frequenting the other PSs area,
can be maintained at all such Police Stations.
8 Persons who intimidate by threats or use of physical
violence or other unlawful means to part with
movable or immovable properties or in the habit of
collecting money by extortion from shopkeepers,
traders and other residents including ‘loan sharks’
9 Persons who incite, instigate and participate in
communalcaste or political riots.
10 Persons detained under the “AP Prevention of
Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug
Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and
Land Grabbers Act, 1986” or other Preventive
Detention laws for a period of 6 months or more.
11 Persons on whom charge sheets filed under the
offence of assault on public servants, under Arms Act
and such other offences punishable with
imprisonment of 2 years or more.
12 Persons on whom charge sheets filed under the
offence of Murder and attempt to murder (302 and
307 of IPC).
13 Persons on whom charge sheets filed under the
offence of Chain snatching.
14 Persons who are convicted under the Representation
of People Act, 1951 for rigging, carrying away,
damaging ballot paper, boxes and polling material.

10. Thus, the above categories of persons can be classified as rowdies and rowdy sheets
can be opened against them as per Form No.80 of the A.P. Police Manual. Be that it may,
the case of the petitioners falls under Serial No.12 as extracted supra. Having regard to the
fact that only one charge sheet was filed against the petitioners for the offence under
Section 307 IPC and other offences and whereas, in Serial No.12 the term “charge sheets”
is used, it is contended that opening of rowdy sheet is per se illegal. In oppugnation, the
contention of learned Government Pleader as stated supra is that in respect of grave
offences, one charge sheet is sufficient to open a rowdy sheet. In the above context, a
perusal of Order 601 shows that as per Serial No.5, persons who have been charge sheeted
 Page 7 of 8

under the offence of Rape (376, 376 A, C, D, E) can be classified as rowdies and rowdy
sheets can be opened against them. Similarly, as per Serial No.6, persons who have been
charge sheeted under the offences of POCSO Act, 2012 and Acid attacks (326A and 326B
of IPC) can also be classified as rowdies and rowdy sheets can be opened. Further, as per
Serial No.11, persons on whom charge sheets filed under the offence of assault on public
servants (353), under Arms Act and such other offences punishable with imprisonment of
2 years or more can be classified as rowdies and rowdy sheets can be opened.

11. Therefore, a close scrutiny of Order 601 pellucidly tells us that offences like Rape,
Acid attacks, offences under POCSO Act, 2012, offences involving assault on public
servants, committing offences under Arms Act appear to have been rated as grave offences
by the framers of the A.P. Police Manual and considered that a single charge sheet for
such offences was sufficient for opening rowdy sheet. It is in this context when Serial
No.12 is perused, it is mentioned therein that persons on whom charge sheets filed under
the offence of murder and attempt to murder (302 & 307 IPC), can be classified as rowdies
and rowdy sheets can be opened. There is no gain saying that the offence of murder and its
attempt are grave offences. So, going by the previous entries in Serial Nos.5, 6, & 11, it
can be said that a single charge sheet for the offence of murder (302 IPC) or attempt to
murder (307 IPC) is suffice to open a rowdy sheet. As rightly pointed out by the learned
Government Pleader, plural noun “charge sheets” is employed because two distinct
offences i.e., murder and attempt to murder are referred there. In my considered view,
Serial No.12 can also be interpreted otherwise as-“persons on whom charge sheet is filed
under the offence of murder or attempt to murder (302 & 307 IPC)”. Therefore, this Court
agrees with the contention of the learned Government Pleader that a single charge sheet is
suffice. Even otherwise, as submitted by him, the term “charge sheets” can be interpreted
as singular noun “charge sheet” by virtue of Section 3(35) of the A.P. General Clauses
Act, 1891 which says that words in the singular shall include the plural and words in the
plural shall include the singular. In the case of Rinku Alias Hukku (supra 4), the Division
Bench of the Allahabad High Court interpreted the word “activities” appearing in Section
2(c) of the U.P. Gangsters and Antisocial Activities Prevention Act, 1986 as “activity”. In
the instant case, if the word “charge sheets” is interpreted as “charge sheet”, then Serial
No.12 shall be read as “Persons on whom charge sheet is filed under the offence of murder
or attempt to murder (302 or 307 IPC). For the aforesaid reasons I am unable to accept the
contention of the learned counsel for petitioners that more than one charge sheet is
essential. Consequently, the decisions cited by him have no application.

12. Having found that a single charge sheet is suffice to open rowdy sheet, it has now to be
seen whether continuation of the rowdy sheets against the petitioners is legally tenable.

13. Order 602 of the A.P. Police Manual lays down the conditions under which History
Sheets of the suspects and rowdies can be continued. It reads thus:

Period of retention of History Sheets of Suspects/Rowdies:-

“602-1. History Sheets of suspects shall be maintained from the date of registration
up to the end of December, after which the orders of a SDPO as to their
discontinuance or retention for a further period shall be obtained.

2. Merely because a suspect/rowdy, having a history sheet, is not figuring as accused

in the previous 5 years after the last case in which he was involved, it should not
 Page 8 of 8

preclude the SP/DCP/CP to continue his history sheet if SP/DCP/CP is of the

considered view that his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
or one affecting peace and tranquility in the area or the victims are not coming
forward to give complaint against him on account of threat from him.”

Thus, History Sheet of a rowdy can be continued

(i) if his activates are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or affecting
peace and tranquility in the area.

(ii) The victims are not coming forward to give complaint against him on account of
threat from him.

14. In the counter, two grounds are shown for continuation of rowdy sheet. Firstly, that
there is every chance that he may gain over the witnesses and secondly, due to fear of the
petitioners no one has turned up to the police station to lodge any fresh complaints. It must
be said that first ground is not envisaged in Order 602. Even otherwise if the petitioners
made any attempt to win over the witnesses in Cr.No.304/2019, the concerned police can
report to the Court where the case is pending for cancellation of the bail of the petitioners
or for taking other suitable action. The second ground is concerned, except alleging that no
victim has turned up to the police station to lodge any fresh complaints for fear of
petitioners, no plausible material is placed before the Court in that regard. It is
incomprehensible as to how the respondent police came to know that the petitioners
committed some other offences when none of the victims came forward to the police
station to lodge fresh complaints. Thus, both the grounds shown are not sustainable in the
eye of law.

In the result, these writ petitions are disposed of directing the respondents to close the
rowdy sheets opened against the petitioners within one (1) week from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order. No costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.