Madras High Court
K.Raja Hussain vs The Superintendent Of Police on 21 January, 2025
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
W.P.(MD)No.29675 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21.01.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
W.P.(MD)No.29675 of 2024
K.Raja Hussain
... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Superintendent Office,
Ramanathapuram District.
2. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, (L and O)
Ramanathapuram Town,
Ramanathapuram District.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Kenikarai Law and Order Police Station,
Kenikarai,
Ramanathapuram,
Ramanathapuram District.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Respondents to remove
petitioner name in History sheet No. 7/1983 from the surveillance
Register.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mohamed Rafi
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.29675 of 2024
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the Respondents to
remove petitioner name in History sheet No.7/1983 from the surveillance
Register.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that since the petitioner is doing public service for the past 40 years,
many cases were falsely foisted against him. Despite this, the second
respondent included the petitioner's name in the history sheet, vide
H.S.No.7 of 1983, without any material evidence. Therefore, on
26.11.2024, the petitioner sent a representation to the respondents
through registered post, narrating the entire set of facts, and 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
it is being extended regularly as per the Police Standing Order.
Therefore, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. However, he would
concede that for the last 4 years the petitioner has not involved in any
cases.
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. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 “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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 second respondent is directed to consider
the petitioner's representation, dated 26.11.2024 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.
21.01.2025
NCC: Yes/No
Index: Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
PNM
To
The Superintendent of Police,
Superintendent Office,
Ramanathapuram District.
2. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, (L and O)
Ramanathapuram Town,
Ramanathapuram District.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Kenikarai Law and Order Police Station,
Kenikarai,
Ramanathapuram,
Ramanathapuram District.
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
PNM
ORDER IN
21.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
