Madras High Court
P.R.Duraipandi vs The Superintendent Of Police on 6 January, 2025
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
W.P.(MD)No.48 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.01.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
W.P.(MD)No.48 of 2025
P.R.Duraipandi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Office of the Superintendent of Police
Sivagangai District
Sivagangai
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police
Karaikudi Sub Division
Sivagangai District
3. The Inspector of Police
Karaikudi North Police Station
Sivagangai District ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, seeking a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to cancel
history sheet in HS No.496 of 2023 maintained in the petitioner's name
on the file of the respondent No.2 by considering the petitioner's
representation dated 23.11.2024 in accordance with law within the time
stipulated by this Court
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.48 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Malaikani
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The prayer sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the
respondents to cancel history sheet in HS No.496 of 2023 maintained in
the petitioner's name on the file of the respondent No.2 by considering
the petitioner's representation dated 23.11.2024 in accordance with law
within the time stipulated by this Court
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner has been earlier implicated as accused in some cases
However, all the cases were disposed of and as of now, no criminal
cases are pending against the petitioner before the third respondent.
Despite this, the third respondent included the petitioner's name in the
history sheet, vide H.S.No496 of 2013, without any material evidence.
Therefore, on 23.11.2024, the petitioner sent a representation to the
respondents through registered post, narrating the entire set of facts, and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
requested the removal of his name from the history sheet. However, no
action has been taken so far. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondents submitted that the petitioner is an habitual offender
indulging in rowdy activities. 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. He would
further submit that as of now one case is pending against the petitioner
in Crime No.371 of 2021 on the file of the Karaikudi North Police
Station. 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 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.''
6. In view of the above circular issued by the Director General of
Police, Chennai, this Court is inclined to pass the following orders :-
(i) the respondent police is directed to consider
the petitioner's representation, dated 23.11.2024 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
7. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
No costs.
06.01.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
aav
To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Office of the Superintendent of Police
Sivagangai District
Sivagangai
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police
Karaikudi Sub Division
Sivagangai District
3. The Inspector of Police
Karaikudi North Police Station
Sivagangai District
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
aav
06.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
