High Court · 2025

W.P.No.9985 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 19.03.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANW.P.No.9985 of 2025K.Velu... Petitioner Vs1. The Superintendent of Police, O/o.The Superintendent of Police, Salem District.2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, O/o. Omalur The Superintendent of Police, Omalur, Salem District.3. The Inspector of Police, Deevattipatti Police Station, Salem District.4. The Inspector of Police Station, Metcheri Police Station, Salem District. ... RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the first and second respondents to remove the petitioner's name in the history sheet no.309 of 2014 filed in pertain to maintain the illegal case records on the file of the third respondent and consequently by this Hon'ble Court may be fixed the stipulate time for consider the petitioner's representation dated 20.01.2025 for remove the petitioner's name.Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.9985 of 2025For Petitioner : Mr.G.MunurajFor Respondents : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.side) ORDERThis Writ Petition has been filed for direction directing the first and second respondents to remove the petitioner's name in the history sheet no.309 of 2014 maintained by the third respondent.2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the third respondent had registered false cases as against the petitioner in several crime numbers. Thereafter, in order to wreck vengences, plenty of criminal cases have been foisted as against the petitioner. 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 Sheeted 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 several representations to delete the History Sheet, but the respondents have not yet considered till date. Therefore, he sought for allowing the writ petition.3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.9985 of 2025respondents submitted that the petitioner is an habitual offender indulging in rowdy activities, extortion, katta panchayats, etc. Hence, History Sheeted Rowdy Book was opened at the third respondent police station as against the petitioner and it is being expanded regularly as per the Police Standing Order. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.5.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.133410/Crime4(3)/2018 dated 05.10.2018, which reads as follows :-The Hon'ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in its order dated 26.09.2018, in a batch of cases, in the reference second cited, while quashing the History Sheet maintained in certain Police Stations and which are challenged before the Hon'ble Court, has observed and directed as follows :- "28................ there is a general pattern adopted trend by the Police to continue to retain the names of the persons in the history sheet showing them as rowdies without any justifiable Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.9985 of 2025reasons. The Police did not realise that the purpose of opening a history sheet is to keep surveillance and check on hardened and habitual criminals in order to maintain peace and tranquility in the society. 29.As mentioned above, it also becomes the duty of the Police to keep reviewing the history sheet regularly to ensure that the persons, who are no longer required to be retained in the list are removed from the list, since it involves the dignity and public image of a person ............. 30.Whenever representations are made by the persons whose names are found in the history sheet, it is the duty of the respondent Police to consider the same ............. It will be of no use for the respondent Police to keep the representation pending even without considering them and driving the concerned persons to file appropriate petition before this Court. This Court only hopes that the Police learns a lesson at least after the passing of this order, to be more sensitive and serious in maintaining history sheet. 31........... The Police seems to be adopting the practice of registering FIRs against the persons under Sections 109 and 110 of CrPC, just to open the history sheet and to justify the continuance of the name of the persons in the history sheet. ............... automatic opening of history sheet can be done only if the person has been convicted more than twice under Section 109 of CrPC and more than once under Section 110 of CrPC. Therefore, mere registration of an FIR under Sections 109 and Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.9985 of 2025110 of CrPC can never justify the action of the Police in continuing to retain the name of the person in the history sheet. 32..................... 33.This Court wants to make it clear that in all future cases, where the retention of the name of a person in history sheet becomes a subject matter of challenge before this Court, if this Court finds that the name of the person has been retained without any justification and is in contravention with PSO Nos.746 to 748 and the guidelines given by this Court, compensation will be granted to the victims and the same will be directed to be recovered from the monthly salary of the Inspector of Police in whose station the history sheet is being maintained........"2. Provisions contained in PSO 746 to 748 and the above orders of the Hon'ble High Court shall be followed scrupulously while maintaining the history sheets by the SHOs.3. All Sub-Divisional Officers shall periodically review all History sheet files and Rowdy sheet files maintained in the Police Station under their jurisdiction.4. IGPs in Zones, COPs in citites and the SPs in District shall sensitize all the Police personnel working under their jurisdiction in this regard and also review the cases periodically."6.In view of the above circular issued by the Director General of Police, Chennai, this Court is inclined to pass the following order:- Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.9985 of 2025(i) The third respondent, is directed to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner seeking to remove his name in the history sheet, in view of the direction issued by this Court and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within the period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. In the light of the above discussions, this Writ Petition petition is disposed of. No costs.19.03.2025Index: Yes/NoNeutral citation: Yes/NoSpeaking/non-speaking ordermnPage 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.9985 of 2025To 1. The Superintendent of Police, O/o.The Superintendent of Police, Salem District.2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, O/o. Omalur The Superintendent of Police, Omalur, Salem District.3. The Inspector of Police, Deevattipatti Police Station, Salem District.4. The Inspector of Police Station, Metcheri Police Station, Salem District.5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.9985 of 2025 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,mnW.P.No.9985 of 202519.03.2025Page 8 of 8