Telangana High Court
Sandiri Narendar Alias China vs The State Of Telangana on 1 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
WRIT PETITION No.7937 of 2026
Dated: 01.04.2026
Between:
Sandiri Narendar @ China ... Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Home Department, Secretariat,
Hyderabad and three (3) others ... Respondents
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of
Constitution of India for the following relief/s:-
”… to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one
in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of
the 4th respondent in opening and retaining the rowdy
sheet against the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and
violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India
and consequently, direct the 4th respondent to close the
rowdy sheet against the petitioner forthwith and pass
such other order or orders …”
2. Heard Mr.C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr.M.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government
Pleader for Home representing learned Government Pleader
for Home appearing for respondents. Perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was arrayed as accused No.4 in C.C.No.204 of 2019
2
on the file of the learned XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Hyderabad for the offences punishable under
Sections 427 and 447 of I.P.C. and he was sentenced to pay
fine of Rs.500/- under each count vide judgment dated
11.02.2023; that the fine amount was already paid. He
further contends that the petitioner was arrayed as accused
No.1 in S.C.No.70 of 2023 on the file of the learned XI
Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking
Cases relating to Attrocities against Women-II, Hyderabad for
the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 417, 420,
341, 504 & 506 of I.P.C. and he was acquitted of all charges
vide judgment dated 29.10.2024.
4. He further states that the petitioner is tried as sole
accused in S.C.No.647 of 2023 on the file of the learned II
Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad for the
offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 506 of
I.P.C.; that the petitioner was bound over on two occasions
under Section 107 Cr.P.C. vide M.C.No.B/866/2023 dated
20.09.2023 for an year and under Section 126 BNSS vide
M.C.No.B1/873/2025 dated 25.10.2025 for an year. He
states that the bound over proceedings are not criminal cases
3
as no penal sections are invoked; that a rowdy sheet is
opened against the petitioner due to which the Police are
visiting the house of the petitioner during the night hours and
taking him to police station. He contends that the petitioner is
married and blessed with children. Such actions of police are
causing fear and alarm in the family of the petitioner.
Therefore, relying on the decision passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Dhanji Ram Sharma Vs. Superintendent
of Police 1 he seeks to pass appropriate orders.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home by
filing counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No.4 contends
that the petitioner is involved in (i) S.C.No.647 of 2023 on the
file of the learned II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,
Hyderabad for the charges under Sections 302, 307 and 506
of I.P.C., (ii) S.C.No.652 of 2021 for the charges under
Sections 376(2)(n), 417, 410 I.P.C. and acquitted vide
judgment dated 15.03.2021 and (iii) C.C.No.204 of 2019 for
the charges under Sections 447, 427 r/w 34 of I.P.C. which
was disposed of by way of conviction vide judgment dated
11.02.2023. Therefore, in order to keep a watch on the
1
AIR 1966 SC 1766
4
activities of the petitioner and curtail his unlawful activities
rowdy sheet was opened against him to maintain peace and
tranquility. Relying on the decisions reported in Malik Singh
Vs. State of Punjab & Haryana 2, Sunkara Satyanarayana
Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 3, Mohd. Quadeer & Others Vs.
Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad 4, Kharak Singh Vs.
State of U.P. 5, K.S.PUttaswamy Vs. Union of India 6, he
seeks to dismiss the Writ Petition.
6. Maintenance of rowdy sheets is governed by Standing
Order No.601 of A.P. Police Manual, Part-I, Volume II, which
reads as under:
“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.
A. Persons who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the
commission of offences involving a breach of the peace, disturbance to
public order and security.
B. Persons bound over under Sections 106, 107, 108(1) (i) and 110(e)
and (g) of Cr.P.C.
C. Persons who have been convicted more than once in two
consecutive years under sections 59 and 70 of the Hyderabad City
Police Act or under section 3, clause 12, of the AP Towns Nuisances
Act.
2
(1981) 1 SCC 420
3
2000 (1) ALD (Crl) 117
4
(1999) 2 ALT 733
5
AIR 1963 SC 1295
6
(2017) 10 SCC 1
5D. Persons who habitually tease women and girls and pass indecent
remarks.
F. 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.
G. Persons who incite and instigate communal/caste or political riots.
H. Persons detained under the “AP Prevention of Dangerous Activities
of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic
Offenders and Land-Grabbers Act, 1986” for a period of 6 months or
more.
I. Persons who are convicted for offences under the Representatives of
the Peoples’ Act for rigging and carrying away ballot paper, Boxes
and other polling material”‘
7. The period of retention of history sheets of
suspects/rowdies is governed by Standing Order No.602 of
A.P. Police Manual and the same reads as follows:
“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 gazetted officer 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 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 tranquillity in the area or the victims are
not coming forward to give complaint against him on account of
threat from him.”
6
8. Standing Order No.742 of the A.P. Police Manual deals
with classification of rowdies and opening of rowdy sheets,
which is extracted below:
“742. Rowdies:- (1) The following persons may be classified as
rowdies and Rowdy Sheets (Form 88) may be opened for them under
the order of the Superintendent of Police or Sub-divisional Officer:
(a) persons who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the
commission of, offences involving a breach of the peace;
(b) persons bound over under Sections 106, 107, 108(c) and 110(1) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No.2 of 1974);
(c) persons who have been convicted more than once in two
consecutive years under Section 75 of the Madras City Police Act or
under Section 3, clause 12, of the Towns Nuisances Act;
(d) persons who habitually tease women and girls by passing
indecent remarks or otherwise; and
(e) in the case of rowdies residing in an area under one Police Station
but are found to be frequently visiting the area under one or more
other Police Stations their rowdy sheets can be maintained at all such
Police Stations;
(G.O. Ms. No. 656, Home (Police-D) Dept. Dt. 8-4-1971)
(2) Instructions in Order 735 regarding discontinuance of History
Sheets shall also apply to Rowdy Sheets.”
9. At this juncture, it is not out of place to refer the order
rendered by this Court in the case of Mansoor Shah Khan
and others Vs. State of Telangana rep. by its Principal
Secretary, Home Department, Hyderabad and others 7
wherein it is held that rowdy-sheet could not be opened
against an individual in a casual and mechanical manner and
7
2021 (4) ALT 36 (TS)
7
due care and caution should be taken by the Police before
characterizing a person as a rowdy and figuring as an
accused in two cases would not be sufficient to characterize a
person as a habitual offender. For better appreciation, the
relevant paras No.23, 24 and 26 are extracted hereunder.
“23. As stated above, as per Standing Order
601 of the A.P. Police Manual, for opening and
maintenance of rowdy sheet, a person against
whom the same was issued should habitually
commit, attempt to commit or abet the
commission of offences involving a breach of
peace, disturbance to public order and
security. Further, as held by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in Vijay Narain Singh‘s case (2 supra),
the expression ‘habitually’ would mean
‘repeatedly’ or ‘persistently’ implying a thread
of continuity, stringing together similar
repetitive acts, and a single act or omission
would not characterize an act as ‘habitual’.
The Hon’ble Apex Court was of the opinion that
to qualify as a ‘habit’, a person must have
grown accustomed to leading a life of crime,
whereby it would be a force of habit, inherent
or latent, in an individual with a criminal
instinct, with a criminal disposition of mind,
that makes him dangerous to society in
general.
24. In view of the above said law laid down
and in view of the above said discussion, the
petitioners herein were involved in the above
said two crimes. One crime has ended in
acquittal. As on today, only one case i.e
PRC.No.307 of 2020 is pending against the
petitioners herein. Thus, the requirement of
involvement of in at least more than two cases
for inferring that the petitioners were habitual
offenders was not established. Thus opening
of rowdy sheets in the name of the petitioners
is therefore contrary to the procedure laid
down under A.P. Police Manual and procedure
laid down in the Judgments supra.
26. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and
the respondents are directed to close the
rowdy sheets being maintained in the names
8of the petitioners on the file of Banjara Hills
Police Station, Hyderabad. There shall be no
order as to costs.”
10. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner
is a habitual offender and there is every possibility of threat
to the public at large. Further, the respondents have not
given any specific instance of the involvement of petitioner in
commission of the offences subsequent to his acquittal in the
criminal cases registered against him.
11. In view of the above and relying on the decision cited
(supra 1), this Court is of the opinion that opening of
rowdy-sheet and continuing the same against the petitioner
is contrary to the procedure laid down under A.P. Police
Manual.
12. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. The
respondents are directed to close the rowdy sheet opened
against the petitioner forthwith. However, this order shall not
preclude the respondent authorities to open a rowdy sheet
against the petitioner, if the petitioner is involved in more
than two (2) criminal cases, by following the procedure
prescribed under Order No.601 of the A.P. State Police
Manual. There shall be no order as to costs.
9
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand
closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
01.04.2026
ESP