Madras High Court
S.Powl Raj vs The Superintendent Of Police on 3 August, 2020
Author: R.Pongiappan
Bench: R.Pongiappan
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7496 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 03.08.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7496 of 2020
S.Powl Raj ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Dindigul District.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Dindigul Rural Sub-Division,
Dindigul District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Chinnalapatti Police Station,
Dindigul District. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., to direct the second and third respondents to remove the
petitioner's name registered as history sheeted suspect vide H.S.No.11 of
2019 from the register meant for registering history sheeted suspects
maintained at the the third respondent's police station.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Anand
For Respondents : Mr.S.Chandrasekar
Additional Public Prosecutor
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/10
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7496 of 2020
ORDER
This criminal original petition has been filed seeking a direction to direct the second and third respondents to remove the petitioner's name from the history sheet maintained by the third respondent by considering the petitioner's representation dated 10.07.2020.
2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there was a dispute between two groups in respect to the maintenance of accounts of the temple, namely Arulmigu Kaliamman Temple, for which a case has been registered in crime No.356 of 2019 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 307, 323, 324, 354, 506(ii) IPC and trial in this case is pending. 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 representation on 10.07.2020 to delete his name in the History Sheet, but the respondents have not considered the same till date. Therefore, he sought for allowing the criminal original petition.
http://www.judis.nic.in 2/10 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7496 of 2020
3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner is an habitual offender and involved in the following cases:-
Sl. Name of the Police Crime No. and Section of Stages of the No. Station Law case 1 Chinnalapatti P.S. Cr.No.366 of 2018 u/s. Not Taken on 147, 188 IPC File 2 Chinnalapatti P.S. Cr.No.388 of 2018 u/s. Not Taken on 147, 188 IPC File 3 Chinnalapatti P.S. Cr.No.402 of 2018 u/s. Not Taken on 147, 291 IPC File 4 Chinnalapatti P.S. Cr.No.356 of 2019 u/s. Pending Trial 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 307, 323, 324, 354, 506(ii) IPC Therefore, History Sheet Rowdy Book was opened at the third respondent Police Station as against the petitioner and it is extended regularly as per the Police Standing Order. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.
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 petition has already been dealt with by the Madurai Bench of this Court and detailed order has been passed in http://www.judis.nic.in 3/10 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7496 of 2020 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 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 http://www.judis.nic.in 4/10 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7496 of 2020 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 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 http://www.judis.nic.in 5/10 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7496 of 2020 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, 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 http://www.judis.nic.in 6/10 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7496 of 2020 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 based on both objective and subjective instructions.
j. Branding a person as a history http://www.judis.nic.in 7/10 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7496 of 2020 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 http://www.judis.nic.in 8/10 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7496 of 2020 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.”
6.In view of the above circular passed by the Director General of Police, Chennai, this Court is inclined to pass the following orders :-
The third respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 10.07.2020 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.
7.With the above directions, this Criminal Original petition stands disposed of.
03.08.2020 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No gns Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
http://www.judis.nic.in 9/10 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7496 of 2020 R.PONGIAPPAN. J.
gns To
1.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dindigul Rural Sub-Division, Dindigul District.
3.The Inspector of Police, Chinnalapatti Police Station, Dindigul District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7496 of 202003.08.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in 10/10