Madras High Court
Thirumurugan @ Theeranthirumurugan vs The Superintendent Of Police on 9 February, 2022
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 09.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P(MD).No.2800 of 2022
Thirumurugan @ TheeranThirumurugan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Superintendent of Police
Ramanathapuram District
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Thiruvadanai Sub Division
Ramanathapuram District
3. The Inspector of Police
Thirupalaikudi Police Station
Ramanathapuram District ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, praying to direct the first and second respondents to
remove the name of the petitioner from the History Sheet in H.S.No.135
of 2019 maintaining against the petitioner in third respondent police
Station from 21.11.2019.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani
For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
No.1 to 3 Additional Public Prosecutor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
ORDER
This petition has been filed to direct the respondents to remove the petitioner's name in the History Sheet in H.S. No.135 of 2019 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 21.11.2019.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that due to political vendata, a false case has been foisted against the petitioner. During that point of time, the respondent police opened History Sheet 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 name in the History Sheet, but the respondents have not yet considered till date. Therefore, he sought for allowing this petition.
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner is an habitual offender indulging in rowdy activities, extortion, katta panchayats, etc. Hence, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3 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. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the petition.
4. Heard Mr.R.Alagumani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.M.Anbunithi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
5. The issue involved in this 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/Crime 4(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 Histroy 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 reasons. The Police did not realise that the purpose of opening a history sheet is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis to keep surveillance and check on hardened 4 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 110 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, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5 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 maintaing 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 passed by the Director General of Police, Chennai, this Court is inclined to pass the following orders :-
(i) The second respondent police is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 21.11.2019 and pass appropriate 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 6
7.With the above directions, the Criminal Original petition stands allowed.
09.02.2022
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non Speaking order
aav
To;
1. The Superintendent of Police
Ramanathapuram District
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Thiruvadanai Sub Division Ramanathapuram District
3. The Inspector of Police Thirupalaikudi Police Station Ramanathapuram District
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
aav Crl.O.P(MD).No.2800 of 2022 09.02.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis