Madras High Court

A.Elavarasan vs The Superintendent Of Police on 24 February, 2022

W.P.No.3654 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 24.02.2022

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

W.P.No.3654 of 2022

A.Elavarasan ... Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Superintendent of Police,
Cuddalore District,
Cuddalore – 607 001.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Chidambaram Sub-Division,
Chidambaram, Cuddalore District,
Pin 608 001.

3. The Inspector of Police,
Annamalai Nagar Police Station,
Annamalai Nagar, Chidambaram,
Cuddalore District Pin 608 002. ... Respondents

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Section 226 of Constitution of India,
pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to remove the
petitioner's name from the History Sheet/Rowdy List that has being maintained
in the 3rd respondent police station and to pay compensation to the petitioner for
a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards damages caused to him by the respondents.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

1/10
W.P.No.3654 of 2022

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Rajendiran
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor.

ORDER

The Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondents to remove

the petitioner's name from the History Sheet/Rowdy List that has being

maintained in the 3rd respondent police station and to pay compensation to the

petitioner for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards damages caused to him by the

respondents

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that

the petitioner is now doing Ph.D., in Manufacturing Engineering. Based on the

false complaint, the third respondent police had implicated the petitioner as

accused for the offence under Sections 147, 302 r/w 149 of IPC in Crime

No.97 of 2003, in which the petitioner is not proved guilty. Even though, the

petitioner is not involved in any further criminal activities, at the instigation of

the superior officers in the Police Department, History Sheeted Rowdy Book

was opened at the third respondent police station, in order to harass the

petitioner and to restrict his movements. The petitioner was constantly

compelled to attend the police station in the pretext of enquiry. In this regard,

the petitioner had already made representation on 23.11.2021 to the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.3654 of 2022

respondents to delete his name from the History Sheet book, 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, 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 :-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.3654 of 2022

7.From the above judgments the following principles emerge insofar as history sheeters are concerned:

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.3654 of 2022

concerned Police Station under two circumstances. The first circumstance is provided under PSO No.746, which states that the history sheet can be 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.3654 of 2022

“Current Doings”.

f. In the second category of opening history sheet, a mere act of conviction under the 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.3654 of 2022

Superintendent of Police. This provision is made applicable even for rowdy sheeters.

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,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.3654 of 2022

reported in (2013) 7 MLJ 501, this Court felt that there is lack of understanding on the part of the 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 23.11.2021 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.3654 of 2022

7. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

No costs.

24.02.2022

Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes/No shk/sai