Madras High Court
E.K.Vinod vs State Rep. By on 17 September, 2025
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
WP Crl. No. 857 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17-09-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
WP Crl. No. 857 of 2025
E.K.Vinod
S/o.Iyappan,
No.28, Vinayagar Kovil Street,
Aminthakarai, Chennai - 600 021.
Appellant(s)
Vs
State rep. by,
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai.
2.The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Anna Nagar District,
Anna Nagar, Chennai.
3.The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Anna Nagar Range,
Anna Nagar, Chennai.
4.The Inspector of Police,
K-3, Aminjikarai Police Station,
Chennai.
Respondent(s)
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 07:43:44 pm )
WP Crl. No. 857 of 2025
PRAYER
This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to issue a writ of Mandamus by considering the representation dated
18.05.2025 to 2nd respondent directing the 1st respondent to remove/delete the
petitioner's name from the History Sheet No.5/K-3 P.S/2016 on the file of the
4th respondent within a stipulated time.
For Appellant(s): Mr. M.Soundar Vijay Arulram
For Respondents: Mr. R.Vinothraja,
Govt. Advocate (crl. Side)
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to remove
the name of the petitioner from the History Sheet on the file of the 2 nd
respondent.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in
the year 2009, n FIR in Crime No.204 of 2009 has been registered for the
offences against the petitioner/A6 and others under Sections 365,342, 506(ii),
376 r/w.34 and 385 of IPC and the petitioner was acquitted by the Trial Court by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 07:43:44 pm )
judgment dated 19.01.2015. Further, in the year 2015, the 3rd respondent
registered a case under Section 75 of City Police Act, which was subsequently
closed on payment of fine. However, based on the said case registered u/s.75 of
the City Police Act, a separate rowdy list was opened including the name of the
petitioner.
3. It is further contended that though this Court, by order dated
21.11.2022 in Crl.O.P.No.28165 of 2022, directed the third respondent to
consider the representation of the petitioner, no action has been taken so far.
Now, all of a sudden, the 4th respondent has registered a false case in Crime
No.399 of 2025 against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 296(b),
119(2), 309(4), 311, 79, 351(3) of BNS and Section 4 of TN Prohibition of
Harassment of Women Act 2002. In this regard, the petitioner had made a
representation dated 18.05.2025 to the 2nd respondent seeking deletion of his
name from the History Sheet, but the same has not been considered till date.
Hence, the present petition has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 07:43:44 pm )
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondents submitted that the petitioner is an habitual offender indulging in
rowdy activities, extortion, etc. Hence, a History Sheeted Rowdy Book was
opened at the fourth respondent police station against the petitioner and is being
extended regularly as per the Police Standing Order. Hence, he prays for
dismissal of the petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents and perused the
materials available on record.
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 :-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 07:43:44 pm )
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 concerned Police
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 07:43:44 pm )
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 “Current Doings”.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 07:43:44 pm )
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 Superintendent of Police.
This provision is made applicable even for rowdy sheeters.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 07:43:44 pm )
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,
reported in (2013) 7 MLJ 501, this Court felt that there is
lack of understanding on the part of the Police in maintaining
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 07:43:44 pm )
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.”
7. In view of the above, the second respondent is directed to consider the
petitioner's representation, dated 18.05.2025 and 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 copy of this order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 07:43:44 pm )
8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition(Criminal) stands disposed of with the
aforesaid direction. No costs.
17-09-2025
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
mrp
To
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai.
2.The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Anna Nagar District, Anna Nagar,
Chennai.
3.The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Anna Nagar Range, Anna Nagar, Chennai.
4.The Inspector of Police,
K-3, Aminjikarai Police Station, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 07:43:44 pm )
N.SATHISH KUMAR J.
mrp
17-09-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 07:43:44 pm )
