Madras High Court
S.Vijayakumar vs The Superintendent Of Police on 4 October, 2019
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04.10.2019
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P(MD).No.14147 of 2019
S.Vijayakumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Superintendent of Police
Karur District
Thanthonimalai
Karur
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Kulithalai
3.The Inspector of Police
Kulithalai Police Station
Kulithalai ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, praying to direct the respondents to remove the name
of the Petitioner from the history Sheet in H.S. 681/2016 maintained by
the third Respondent as per the representation made by the Petitioner
dated 18.09.2019 .
For Petitioner : Mr. K.Suresh
For Respondents : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi
No.1 to 3 Government Advocate(Crl.Side)
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
ORDER
This petition has been filed to direct the respondents to remove the name of the Petitioner from the history Sheet in H.S. 681/2016 maintained by the third Respondent as per the representation made by the Petitioner dated 18.09.2019 .
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that due to political vendetta, a false case has been foisted against the petitioner and others in Crime Nos.53 of 2012 and 213 of 2014 on the kulithalai Police station and the learned Magistrate No.II, Kulithalai has taken cognizance relating to thecase in Crime No. 53 of 2012 in C.C. No. 103 of 2012 and upon full trial the petitioner was acquitted from all charges levelled against him. During that point of time, the respondent police opened History Sheet against the petitioner in H.S.No.681 of 2016. n 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 second 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 http://www.judis.nic.in 3 respondents have not yet considered till date. Therefore, he sought for allowing this petition.
3. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents 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 extended regularly as per the Police Standing Order. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the petition.
4. Heard Mr.K.Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi, learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) 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 :-
http://www.judis.nic.in 4 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 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 http://www.judis.nic.in CrPC. Therefore, mere registration of an FIR 5 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, 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 petitioner is directed to submit a fresh representation before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kulithalai within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6
(ii) On receipt of such representation, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kulithalai is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate order on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks therefrom.
7.With the above directions, the Criminal Original petition stands allowed.
04.10.2019
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non Speaking order
aav
To;
1. The Superintendent of Police
Karur District
Thanthonimalai
Karur
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Kulithalai
3.The Inspector of Police Kulithalai Police Station Kulithalai
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.
http://www.judis.nic.in 7 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
aav Crl.O.P(MD).No.14147 of 2019 04.10.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in