1. Challenge in this writ petition is to an order passed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karur Town Sub Division, Karur, retaining the petitioner in History Sheet till 31.12.2012.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that though he was involved in three crime numbers, two of them have ended in acquittal. He further submitted that though he submitted a representation, dated 30.12.2011, seeking for deletion of his name from the History Sheet, the Inspector of Police, Karur Town Police Station, Karur, has failed to respond. In the said circumstances, earlier he was constrained to file W.P. (MD). No. 1282 of 2012 for a mandamus, directing the respondents therein to delete the name of the petitioner in the History Sheet No. 135 of 2009, maintained by the Inspector of Police, Karur Town Police Station, Karur District. The said writ petition came to be dismissed on the ground that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karur Town Sub Division, Karur, the second respondent herein has decided to retain the petitioner in the History Sheet of Karur Town Police Station till 31.12.2012. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order, retaining him in History Sheet.

3. Assailing the correctness of the order passed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karur Town Sub Division, Karur District and placing reliance on the decisions of this Court in W.P. (MD) Nos. 2286 of 2005 and batch, S. Vani and the Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District and Others, dated 15.9.2008, and in W.P. No. 5677 of 2007, L. Ravindran v. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai and Others, dated 22.3.2012, Mr. Prasanna Vinodh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karur Town Sub Division, Karur, has failed to consider that the petitioner was not involved in any serious crime affecting peace and public tranquility, and that therefore, there is non application of mind on the part of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karur Town Sub Division, Karur, the second respondent herein, to the provisions warranting opening and retention of History Sheet. He further submitted that had the Inspector of Police, Karur Town Police Station, Karur, forwarded the details of acquittal in Crime Nos. 2773 of 2009 and 80 of 2010, which are favourable to the petitioner, then the second respondent would not have retained the petitioner in the History sheet. Thus, he submitted that there is a failure on the part of the second respondent in taking into consideration, Police Standing Order 758 which reads that when any information favourable to an individual for whom a History Sheet is being kept is received, it shall be entered therein.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

5. In the case on hand, History Sheet has been opened on 30.12.2009. The petitioner was involved in the following crimes:

(i) Crime No. 2773 of 2009, under Section 147, 148, 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) IPC;

(ii) Crime No. 80 of 2010, under Section 447, 427, 294(b), 506(ii) IPC;

6. Thereafter, the petitioner has also come to adverse notice in Crime No. 1132 of 2011, under Section 323 and 506(ii) IPC on the file of the Karur Town Police Station, Karur and on 14.10.2011, the petitioner has been enlarged on bail. The Inspector of Police, Karur Town Police Station, Karur District, in his request for extension of History Sheet till 31.12.2012, has stated that monitoring the petitioner is required.

7. Opening and retention of History Sheet, the scope and exercise of the powers by the Police Officers have been considered in a decision of this Court in Ganesan v. The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District, (2011) 1 MLJ (Cri) 214 , wherein this Court held as follows;

“45. Reading of the Police Standing Orders dealing with opening and retention of history sheets for different kinds of persons, such as, convicts, rowdies, known depredators, suspects and Others shows that the authorities who are