Madras High Court

T.S.Pasupathi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 March, 2022

                                                                               W.P.No.5481 of 2022

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                           DATED : 10.03.2022

                                                   CORAM

                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

                                           W.P.No.5481 of 2022

              T.S.Pasupathi,
              S/o.Thangavelsamy                                           ... Petitioner

                                                     Vs

              1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
                Represented by the Chief Secretary to Government,
                Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

              2.The Commissioner of Police,
                Greater Chennai City,
                Office of the Chennai City Police Commissionerate,
                Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.

              3.The Inspector of Police,
                Law and Order,
                R-5, Virugambakkam Police Station,
                Virugambakkam, Chennai - 600 092.                         ... Respondents


              Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a
              Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to dispose the petitioner's
              representation dated 29.09.2021.

                                  For Petitioner      : Mr.L.Rajasekar

                                  For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
                                                    Additional Public Prosecutor

                 ____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
              Page No. 1 of 10
                                                                               W.P.No.5481 of 2022

                                                  ORDER

This writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of

Mandamus, to direct the respondents to dispose the petitioner's representation

dated 29.09.2021.

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

petitioner was doing business in the name and style of M/s.Vivek Furnitures,

having shop at No.1, Yadaval 2nd Street, Virugambakkam,

Chennai - 600 092. The petitioner used to hire out chairs, utensils and lights

for various occasions to the customers. Since the petitioner was also holding

various posts in political party and due to political vengeance the third

respondent has foisted a false case against the petitioner, based on the case

pending against the petitioner, the third respondent has opened history sheet

already vide History Sheet No.78 of 1989. The petitioner's name is

appearing in the rowdy list of the third respondent station and the petitioner

has sent representation dated 29.09.2021 to the first respondent, seeking to

remove his name from the rowdy list (History sheet). However, no action has

been taken, the petitioner has filed this petition.

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

W.P.No.5481 of 2022

3. The learned counsel would also submit that the respondent police

had harassed the petitioner and on the pretext that his name appears in the

History Sheet Vide No.78 of 1989. In continuation, in order to harass the

petitioner and to restrict his movements, at the instigation of the superior

officers in the Police Department, History Sheet 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 already made a representation on 29.09.2021 to

delete the name in the History Sheet, but the respondents have not yet

considered till date. Therefore, he sought for allowing the writ petition.

4. 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 Sheet

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.

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

W.P.No.5481 of 2022

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the

learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

6. 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:

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

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

W.P.No.5481 of 2022

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 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.

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

W.P.No.5481 of 2022

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 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.

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

W.P.No.5481 of 2022

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.

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

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

W.P.No.5481 of 2022

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 Police in maintaining history sheet and

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

W.P.No.5481 of 2022

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.

7. 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 29.09.2021 and pass orders, on merits and in

accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt

of a copy of this Order.

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

W.P.No.5481 of 2022

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA,J.

dsn/arb

8. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No