Madras High Court
M.Samikannu vs The Inspector Of Police on 12 September, 2022
WP.No.10265 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
WP.No.10265 of 2014 & M.P.No.1 of 2014
M.Samikannu ... Petitioner
Vs
The Inspector of Police,
G-5, Secretariat Colony,
Chennai – 600 010. ... Respondent
Prayer:- This Writ Petition is filed, under the Article 226 of Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to remove the
name of the petitioner as a History Sheet Rowdy on the file of the
respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Doraisamy
For Respondent : Mr.J.Subbiah,
Government Advocate [Criminal Side]
ORDER
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.10265 of 2014
This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondent to remove
the name of the petitioner from the History Sheet on the file of the
respondent.
2. It is stated by the learned Government Advocate [Criminal Side],
that there are 14 cases originally pending against the petitioner.
3. The issue involved in this Criminal Original 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 in so far 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.10265 of 2014
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.10265 of 2014
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 subcategorization as, close
watch bad characters and nonclose 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
WP.No.10265 of 2014
“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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.10265 of 2014
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 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.10265 of 2014
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 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.
4. Further, a perusal of the counter itself indicate that except one case
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.10265 of 2014
all other cases have already ended in acquittal. It is also brought to the
notice of this Court that cases in Crime No.42 of 2018, 44 of 2018 and 106
of 2018 have been quashed against the petitioner and in support of the
same, the learned counsel for the petitioner also produced a copy of the
Order passed in Crl.O.P.No.265 of 2022.
5. In such view of the matter, the petitioner is directed to give a fresh
representation to the respondent within a period of 10 days from the date
of receipt of a copy of this Order and on such representation, the
respondent shall pass an Order on the basis of the circular issued by the
Director General of Police in Rc.No.66569/Crime 3(2)/2019 dated
24.04.2019 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a fresh
representation from the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
12.09.2022
Index:Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.10265 of 2014
Web:Yes/No
Speaking/Non Speaking
vrc
To,
The Inspector of Police,
G-5, Secretariat Colony,
Chennai – 600 010.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.10265 of 2014
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
vrc
WP.No.10265 of 2014
12.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
