Madras High Court
Sakthivel vs The Superintendent Of Police on 21 April, 2022
W.P.No.9839 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.04.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
W.P.No.9839 of 2022
Sakthivel ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Cuddalore District,
Cuddalore.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Thittakudi Police Station,
Cuddalore District. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India,
pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction in the nature of writ, directing the first respondent to consider the
representation dated 09.04.2022 and further directing the second respondent
herein to remove the name of the petitioner from the rowdy list record
H.S.No.10 of2021 maintain by the 2nd respondent police in accordance with
law.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Velmurugan
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
W.P.No.9839 of 2022
ORDER
The Writ Petition has been filed to direct the first respondent to
consider the representation dated 09.04.2022 and further directing the second
respondent herein to remove the name of the petitioner from the rowdy list
record H.S.No.10 of2021 maintain by the 2nd respondent police
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
the petitioner is a barber by profession. The petitioner was falsely implicated by
the 2nd respondent in the case of selling prohibited lottery tickets and insisted
him to plead guilty and similar cases were foisted against him and also troubled
him by interfering into his shop. He would further submit that the petitioner
was forced to execute a security bond under Section 110 Cr.P.C and in order to
harass and to restrict his movements, History Sheeted Rowdy Book was opened
in HS.No.10 of 2021 at the second respondent police station and the petitioner
was frequently compelled to attend the police station in the pretext of enquiry.
In this regard, the petitioner had already made representation on 09.04.2022 to
the 1st respondent to delete his name from the History Sheet book, but the
respondent has not yet considered till date. Therefore, he sought for allowing
the writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9839 of 2022
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondents submitted that the petitioner is an habitual offender indulging in
rowdy activities, extortion, etc. Hence, History Sheeted Rowdy Book was
opened at the third respondent police station as against the petitioner and it is
being extended regularly as per the Police Standing Order. Therefore, he prays
to dismiss the writ petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
5. The issue involved in this writ petition has already been dealt with by
the Madurai Bench of this Court and detailed order has been passed in
W.P.(MD)No.19651 of 2017 on 26.09.2018. On the basis of the above said
Order, the Director General Of Police, Chennai issued a circular in Rc.No.
66569/Crime 3(2)/2019 dated 24.04.2019, which reads as follows :-
7.From the above judgments the following
principles emerge insofar as history sheeters are concerned:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9839 of 2022
a. In order to facilitate the study of crime
and criminals, the Police Standing Orders provides
a mechanism, whereby every Police Station shall
maintain a crime history, which shall be a
confidential record. In this record all cases of crime
that are mentioned in PSO No.742, which provides
various classes of crime, shall be entered and even
an attempt to commit those offences, are entered in
the records maintained in the Police Station.
b. These crime records maintained by the
Various Police Stations shall be reviewed every year
by the Inspector of Police of the concerned Police
Station. On such review, the Inspector of Police has
to furnish a concise appreciation of the year's crime
for the benefit of the Superior Officers and also to
make suggestions in order to improve the quality of
crime control. The review undertaken by the
Inspector of Police is not merely a catalogue of the
crime in the year. It should reflect the valuable
suggestions in order to prevent such crimes in future
and to provide ways and means of handling serious
offences in an effective manner.
c. History Sheet can be opened by the
concerned Police Station under two circumstances.
The first circumstance is provided under PSO
No.746, which states that the history sheet can be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9839 of 2022
opened against a person who is a resident
(permanently or temporarily) within the station
limit, who is known or believed to be addicted to
commission of crime, whether convicted or not.
Here the thrust is on the habituality or the
propensity to commit a crime by a person, which is
sought to be monitored by opening a history sheet.
d. The second category of persons against
whom history sheet can be opened are the persons,
who are convicted for various offences that has been
listed in PSO No.747, wherein opening of the history
sheet is automatic.
e. In the first category of opening history
sheet, month wise scrutiny or a close watch on the
person concerned is contemplated. Here also there
is sub-catogrization as, close watch bad characters
and non-close watch bad characters. In the former,
the entry shall be made month wise and in the later,
the entry shall be made once in a quarter. What is
entered is normally anything of interest in respect of
the bad character, which goes to the notice of the
Police. These records must be checked and brought
upto date once in a year. Here the main thrust is on
“Current Doings”.
f. In the second category of opening
history sheet, a mere act of conviction under the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9839 of 2022
offences listed in PSO No.747 is enough. The name
of the persons, who have been convicted for those
offences can be retained for a period of two years
after their release from jail.
g. PSO No.748, is the most important
provision, which deals with discontinuance of
history sheet. This provision is common to both the
categories falling under PSO Nos.746 and 747. As
per PSO No.748, the Superintendent of Police may
order a closure of a history sheet at any time. But,
the Divisional Officer can order closure of history
sheet only after the expiry of the period stipulated in
PSO No.747.
h. As per PSO 748, where retention of the
history sheet is considered to be necessary, even
after two years of registration, orders of an Officer
of and above the rank of Assistant Superintendent of
Police/ Deputy Superintendent of Police must be
taken for extension for the first instance upto the
end of next December. For further annual extension
from January to December, separate orders must be
passed every time by an Officer of and above the
rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police / Deputy
Superintendent of Police. This provision is made
applicable even for rowdy sheeters.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9839 of 2022
i. For the purpose of passing such orders,
there must be valid materials available on record
and it cannot be passed on the whims and fancies of
the Police Officers. Therefore, the authority
empowered to extend the period of retention of the
names of the persons in the history sheet, should
record his reasons based on both objective and
subjective instructions.
j. Branding a person as a history sheeted
rowdy, taints the name and image of the person. It is
true that the entire purpose of maintaining a history
sheet is to ensure public peace. However, it should
be balanced with the fundamental right guaranteed
to every citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution
of India. Therefore, a fair and reasonable decision,
based on the materials, with sufficient reasons,
becomes sine qua non to retain the name of a person
as a history sheeter beyond the period stipulated in
the Police Standing Orders.
k. This Court has time and again brought
the above principle to the notice of the Higher
Police Officials and in one of the judgments in
Manivanan Vs. State represented by The District
Collector, Coimbatore District and Others,
reported in (2013) 7 MLJ 501, this Court felt that
there is lack of understanding on the part of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9839 of 2022
Police in maintaining history sheet and therefore,
directed the Director General of Police to issue
necessary instructions / guidelines / circulars with
regard to the manner in which it has to be
maintained and the manner in which the orders will
have to be passed for extension of the period to
continue a person as a history sheeter.
8.The above principles that has been culled out of
various decisions of this Court will now be applied to each
case in order to see if the Police officials have scrupulously
followed all the Police Standing Orders and the judgments
of this Court, while retaining the name of a person as a
history sheeter, beyond the stipulated period.
6. In view of the above circular passed by the Director General of
Police, Chennai, this Court is inclined to pass the following orders :-
(i) the first respondent is directed to consider the
petitioner's representation dated 09.04.2022 and pass
orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this Order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9839 of 2022
7. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
No costs.
21.04.2022
Index :Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
ham
To
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Cuddalore District,
Cuddalore.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Thittakudi Police Station,
Cuddalore District.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9839 of 2022
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA.,J
ham
W.P.No.9839 of 2022
21.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
