Madras High Court
M.Abdulla vs The Superintendent Of Police on 9 October, 2025
W.P.(MD) No.13817 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 09.10.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
W.P.(MD) No.13817 of 2025
and
W.M.P.(MD) No.9969 of 2025
M.Abdulla ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Trichy District, Trichy.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Manapparai, Trichy District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Puthanatham Police Station,
Trichy District. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to
consider the petitioner's representation dated 25.04.2025 seeking removal
of the petitioner's name from the History Sheet opened on the file of the
third respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Ananda Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram
Additional Public Prosecutor
_____________
Page No. 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 11:33:31 am )
W.P.(MD) No.13817 of 2025
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 25.04.2025, seeking the removal of the petitioner's name from the History Sheet opened on the file of the third respondent.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a whistleblower and had given complaints against various government officials; that, due to that, several complaints have been lodged against the petitioner; that on an earlier occasion, when an enquiry was sought to be conducted against the petitioner by the second respondent, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Manapparai, Trichy District, the second respondent, by proceedings dated 30.11.2014, had observed that the petitioner was targeted for making complaints against government servants, and that the petitioner had not caused any hindrance to the public and had not committed any illegal activities; that most of the cases were registered prior to 2022; and that, all of a sudden, in March 2025, a History Sheet has been opened against the petitioner, who is 62 years old, and would, therefore, pray for a direction to the first respondent _____________ Page No. 2 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 11:33:31 am ) W.P.(MD) No.13817 of 2025 to consider the petitioner's representation for the removal of his name from the History Sheet opened against him.
3. The third respondent police has filed a counter affidavit furnishing details of the cases registered against the petitioner and stating that the petitioner is a habitual offender indulging in rowdyism and katta panchayats, and therefore, the History Sheet was opened on 31.03.2025.
4. This Court finds from the counter affidavit that, though several cases have been registered since 1997, most of the cases have either ended in acquittal or have been closed as “action dropped” or “mistake of fact,” and stand disposed of. The list of cases mentioned in the counter affidavit and their respective stages are extracted below:
FIR Details and Police Offences Stage
Station
Puthanatham Police Station Section 430 of IPC Acquittal
Crime No.02/1997
Puthanatham Police Station Sections 341, 466 and 488 of IPC Mistake of Fact Crime No.152/1999 Puthanatham Police Station Sections 307 & 506(ii) of IPC Mistake of Fact Crime No.182/1999 Puthanatham Police Station Sections 427, 336 & 506(ii) of Acquittal Crime No.93/2000 IPC Puthanatham Police Station Section 294(b) of IPC Conviction Crime No.35/2004 _____________ Page No. 3 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 11:33:31 am ) W.P.(MD) No.13817 of 2025 Puthanatham Police Station Section 500 of IPC Action Crime No.43/2004 Dropped Puthanatham Police Station Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) of Mistake of Fact Crime No.124/2004 IPC Puthanatham Police Station Sections 387 and 506(ii) of IPC Compounded Crime No.54/2013 Puthanatham Police Station Sections 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC Mistake of Fact Crime No.07/2013 r/w. Section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST Act Puthanatham Police Station Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(i) Pending on Crime No.70/2022 of IPC r/w. Sections 3(i)(r)(s) and Trial 3(2)(vs) of SC/ST Act Puthanatham Police Station Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(i) Under Crime No.75/2024 of IPC r/w. Sections 3(i)(r)(s) and Investigation 3(2)(vs) of SC/ST Act Manaparai Police Station Sections 353 and 506(i) of IPC Not taken on Crime No.356/2015 file Manaparai Police Station Sections 294(b), 341, 387 and Disposed Crime No.359/2022 506(i) of IPC
5. From the above tabular column, it is evident that the cases registered from 1997 to 2015 have been cited, apart from the cases registered in the years 2022 and 2024. There are three cases pending as of now: one in Crime No.75 of 2024 on the file of the Puthanatham Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which is under investigation; the second one in _____________ Page No. 4 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 11:33:31 am ) W.P.(MD) No.13817 of 2025 Crime No.356 of 2015 on the file of the Manapparai Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 353 and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which is not taken on file; and the third one in Crime No.70 of 2022 on the file of the Puthanatham Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which is pending trial. All other cases have either been disposed of or closed. Out of the two pending investigations, one was registered in the year 2015 and the other in the year 2022. Apart from the fact that those cases are old, the offences are private in nature and, in any event, do not warrant the opening of a history sheet at this stage.
6. It is also seen that the third respondent has stated that the petitioner is a habitual offender indulging in rowdyism and katta panchayats. However, no details of the activities allegedly indulged in by the petitioner have been specified in the counter affidavit. Admittedly, no case has been registered in respect of the alleged acts of rowdyism or katta panchayats. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the opening of the History Sheet by the third respondent is without any logic or basis. Hence, _____________ Page No. 5 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 11:33:31 am ) W.P.(MD) No.13817 of 2025 the respondents are directed to forthwith close the History Sheet opened in the name of the petitioner.
7. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
09.10.2025 JEN Index: Yes/ No Neutral Citation: Yes / No Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order Copy To:
1.The Superintendent of Police, Trichy District, Trichy.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Manapparai, Trichy District.
3.The Inspector of Police, Puthanatham Police Station, Trichy District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
_____________ Page No. 6 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 11:33:31 am ) W.P.(MD) No.13817 of 2025 SUNDER MOHAN, J.
JEN W.P.(MD) No.13817 of 2025 09.10.2025 _____________ Page No. 7 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 11:33:31 am )