Madras High Court
M.Subramanian vs The Superintendent Of Police on 28 April, 2022
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P (MD).No.8491 of 2022
M.Subramanian ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Office of the Superintendent of Police,
Tuticorin District,
Tuticorin.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Tuticorin District,
Tuticorin.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Thiruchendur Police Station,
Tuticorin District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue
a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to remove the petitioner's name
from the history sheet maintaining in the file number 757 of 2014 on the file of the
respondent No.3 by considering the petitioner's representation, dated 09.04.2022 in
light of the judgment i.e., Thirumagan and another Vs. The Superintendent of Police,
Madurai reported in 2020 2 L.W.(Crl.) 266 within the time framed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Thirumurugan
For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
Additional Public Prosecutor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
ORDER
The prayer sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the
respondents to remove the petitioner's name from the history sheet maintaining in
the file number 757 of 2014 on the file of the respondent No.3 by considering the
petitioner's representation, dated 09.04.2022 in light of the judgment i.e.,
Thirumagan and another Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai reported in 2020
2 L.W.(Crl.) 266 within the time framed by this Court.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that no
case is pending against the petitioner except the FIRs in Crime Nos.361 of 2015, 291
of 2016 and 164 of 2017. In continuation, in order to harass the petitioner and to
restrict his movements, at the instigation of the superior officers in the Police
Department, Histroy Sheeted Rowdy Book was opened at the third respondent police
station and the petitioner was compelled to attend the police station in the pretext of
enquiry in a routine manner. In this regard, the petitioner had made representation
on 09.04.2022, to delete the History Sheet, but the respondents have not yet
considered till date. Therefore, he sought for allowing the writ petition.
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents
submitted that the petitioner is an habitual offender indulging in rowdy activities,
extortion, katta panchayats, etc. Hence, History Sheeted Rowdy Book was opened at
the third respondent police station as against the petitioner and it is being extended
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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. 133410/Crime 4(3)/2018,
dated 05.10.2018, which reads as follows :-
The Hon'ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
in its order dated 26.09.2018, in a batch of cases, in the
reference second cited, while quashing the Histroy Sheet
maintained in certain Police Stations and which are
challenged before the Hon'ble Court, has observed and
directed as follows :-
"28................ there is a general pattern adopted
trend by the Police to continue to retain the names
of the persons in the history sheet showing them as
rowdies without any justifiable reasons. The Police
did not realise that the purpose of opening a history
sheet is to keep surveillance and check on hardened
and habitual criminals in order to maintain peace and
tranquility in the society.
29.As mentioned above, it also becomes the
duty of the Police to keep reviewing the history
sheet regularly to ensure that the persons, who are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
no longer required to be retained in the list are
removed from the list, since it involves the dignity
and public image of a person .............
30.Whenever representations are made by the
persons whose names are found in the history
sheet, it is the duty of the respondent Police to
consider the same ............. It will be of no use for
the respondent Police to keep the representation
pending even without considering them and driving
the concerned persons to file appropriate petition
before this Court. This Court only hopes that the
Police learns a lesson at least after the passing of
this order, to be more sensitive and serious in
maintaining history sheet.
31........... The Police seems to be adopting the
practice of registering FIRs against the persons
under Sections 109 and 110 of CrPC, just to open
the history sheet and to justify the continuance of
the name of the persons in the history
sheet. ............... automatic opening of history sheet
can be done only if the person has been convicted
more than twice under Section 109 of CrPC and
more than once under Section 110 of CrPC.
Therefore, mere registration of an FIR under
Sections 109 and 110 of CrPC can never justify the
action of the Police in continuing to retain the name
of the person in the history sheet.
32.....................
33.This Court wants to make it clear that in all
future cases, where the retention of the name of a
person in history sheet becomes a subject matter of
challenge before this Court, if this Court finds that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the name of the person has been retained without
any justification and is in contravention with PSO
Nos.746 to 748 and the guidelines given by this
Court, compensation will be granted to the victims
and the same will be directed to be recovered from
the monthly salary of the Inspector of Police in
whose station the history sheet is being
maintained........"
2. Provisions contained in PSO 746 to 748 and
the above orders of the Hon'ble High Court shall be followed
scrupulously while maintaing the history sheets by the
SHOs.
3. All Sub-Divisional Officers shall periodically
review all History sheet files and Rowdy sheet files
maintained in the Police Station under their jurisdiction.
4. IGPs in Zones, COPs in citites and the SPs in
District shall sensitize all the Police personnel working under
their jurisdiction in this regard and also review the cases
periodically."
6. In veiw of the above circular passed by the Director General of Police,
Chennai, this Court is inclined to pass the following orders :-
(i) the second 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 six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No
costs.
28.04.2022
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non Speaking order
btr
To
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Office of the Superintendent of Police,
Tuticorin District,
Tuticorin.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Tuticorin District,
Tuticorin.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Thiruchendur Police Station,
Tuticorin District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
btr
W.P (MD).No.8491 of 2022
28.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
