Madras High Court
K.Bombay Kumar vs The Superintendent Of Police on 21 August, 2020
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
W.P.No.12730 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON :12.08.2020
PRONOUNCED ON : 21.08.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
W.P.No.12730 of 2015
K.Bombay Kumar ... petitioner
Vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Thiruvannamalai District,
Thiruvannamalai.
2.State rep.by the Inspector of Police,
Thiruvannamalai Town Police Station,
Thiruvannamalai. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to issue a
necessary direction to the second respondent to delete the petitioner
name from the history sheet maintained by the second respondent based
on the petitioner representation made to the respondents dated
29.06.2014.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Semmalai
For Respondent : Mr.Elumalai,
Government Advocate
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.12730 of 2015
ORDER
This writ petition is filed to direct the first respondent to issue necessary direction to the second respondent to delete the petitioner name from the history sheet maintained by the second respondent based on the representation given by the petitioner to the respondents on 29.06.2014.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that he is residing in Thiruvannamalai Town, along with his family members. He got married 10 years back and has one son and two daughters. The petitioner was doing real estate business. From the year 1995 to 2009, there were cases foisted against the petitioner and in all the cases, he had come out successfully unscratched. From the year 2009, there was no complaint against the petitioner. In such circumstances, during the year 2011, the Inspector of Police, Thiruvannamalai, had arrayed the petitioner as accused in Crime No.53 of 2011. Based on that, proceedings under Section 110 of Cr.P.C., were initiated against the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent police opened a history sheet against the petitioner. When the petitioner came to know that he had been arrayed as an accused in Crime No.53 of 2011, he filed Anticipatory Bail petition before this Court. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.12730 of 2015 investigation in Crime No.53 of 2011 is completed and the petitioner is not an accused in that case. Thereafter, the petitioner had sent representation to the respondents along with the order copy of this Court in Crl.O.P.No.21331 of 2011.
3. The learned Government Advocate submitted that the history sheet was opened against the petitioner in the year 2011 and thereafter, a case under Section 302 of IPC was registered against the petitioner. After opening the history sheet, the petitioner had not come to any adverse notice. The reason for opening history sheet was based on the notoriety of the petitioner. Further, it is submitted that as per the directions given by this Court in the case of Sabari vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Madurai City and others reported in TN 5463/2018, the police are instructed to follow the guidelines issued by this Court, which has been followed now.
4. Considering the submissions and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that during the year 2011, the Inspector of Police, Thiruvannamalai, registered a case against the petitioner in Crime No.53 of 2011. Based on which, proceedings against the petitioner under Section 110 of Cr.P.C were initiated and the history sheet was opened against the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner moved Crl.O.P.No.21331 of 2011 and this http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.12730 of 2015 Court, by order dated 29.10.2012, recorded that the petitioner is not the accused in Crime No.53 of 2011. After opening of history sheet, the petitioner has not come to any adverse notice. In view of the same, continuance of the history sheet against the petitioner is not proper. Further, this Court observed the guidelines given in the case of Sabari (cited supra) and the relevant paragraph Nos.26 to 31 are extracted as follows:
“26. It can be seen from all the above cases that 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 reasons. 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.
27. 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 which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
28. Whenever representations are made by the persons whose names are found in the history sheet, it is the http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.12730 of 2015 duty of the respondent Police to consider the same, since it gives an opportunity to the respondent Police to review the history sheet and to ensure that only those names, which deserves to be kept in the history sheet are continued and all the other names are removed. 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.
29. One more factor which needs to be addressed is the pattern that is seen in all these cases. The Police seems to be adopting the practice of registering FIRs against the persons under Sections 109 and 110 of Cr.P.C., just to open the history sheet and to justify the continuance of the name of the persons in the history sheet. Section 109 and Section 110 of Cr.P.C. are not meant for that purpose. Even in PSO No. 747, there is requirement that automatic opening of history sheet can be done only if the person has been convicted more than twice under Section 109 of Cr.P.C. and more than once under Section 110 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, mere registration of an FIR under Sections 109 and 110 of Cr.P.C. can never justify the action of the Police in continuing to retain the name of the person in the history sheet. These shortcut methods should never be adopted and the Courts can easily see-through it, if the same is done.
http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.12730 of 2015
30. Before parting with these cases, this Court again draws the attention of the Director General of Police, Chennai and the Inspector General of Police of various Zones, to sensitize and educate the Police with regard to opening and closing of history sheets. This Court has already given such instructions in the judgment in Manivanan Vs. State represented by The District Collector, Coimbatore District and Others, reported in MANU/TN/2060/2013 : (2013) 7 MLJ 501. However, the situation has not improved and it only seems to be deteriorating.
31. 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. Consequently, all connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no orders as to costs.
5. Further, history sheet is to be kept in lien only for a certain period, giving reasons for opening the history sheet. The period is not to be extended, without valid reasons. In this case, after opening of the history sheet, no extension order has been passed. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to quash the history sheet opened against the http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.12730 of 2015 petitioner in the year 2011. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.
21.08.2020 ssb Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order To
1.The Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.
2.State rep.by the Inspector of Police, Thiruvannamalai Town Police Station, Thiruvannamalai.
http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.12730 of 2015 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
ssb W.P.No.12730 of 2015 21.08.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in