Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 2559
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.
Thangaraj Pandian - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Home, Fort. St. George, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P(MD)No. 7632 of 2018
Decided On : 12-09-2019
For the Petitioner: Mahaboob Athiff for M/s. Ajmal Associates, Advs.
For the Respondents: K. Suyambulinga Bharathi, Government Adv.
The police must review history sheets regularly and remove names without justification. Compensation may be granted to victims if names are retained without justification.
Headnote:
None
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner seeks to remove his name from the rowdy list maintained by the police. He was falsely implicated in a criminal case, but was acquitted. The police opened a history sheet against him based on the criminal case. The petitioner filed a representation to remove his name from the rowdy list, but no action has been taken. The government advocate argues that the petitioner is an habitual offender. The issue has been previously dealt with by the Madurai Bench of the High Court, which directed the police to review history sheets regularly and remove names without justification. The Director General of Police issued a circular in accordance with the court's order. The court directs the petitioner to submit a fresh representation and orders the police to pass orders within four weeks.
Finding of the Court:
The court refers to the previous order of the Madurai Bench and the circular issued by the Director General of Police. It notes that the petitioner has not submitted a representation since 2012 and directs him to submit a fresh representation. The court orders the police to pass orders on the representation within four weeks.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasizes the need for the police to review history sheets regularly and remove names without justification. It states that compensation will be granted to victims if names are retained without justification. The court also directs the police to follow the provisions and guidelines given by the court and the Director General of Police.
Result: The court allows the petitioner to submit a fresh representation and orders the police to pass orders on the representation within four weeks. The writ petition is disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to revoke the history sheet opened against the petitioner in History Sheet No.635/2005, within the time that may be stipulated by this Court.
The prayer sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the respondents to remove the petitioner's name from the rowdy list in H.S.No.635/2005.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a Diploma holder in Co-operation. He served as the Secretary of the Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society at Mariyur between 1988 and 1996. He was fielded as a co-ordinate to contest in the Election for the Tamil Nadu General Assembly in 2006. A false criminal case came to be foisted against him in the year 2000, alleging commission of offence under Section 435 of IPC., that he set a fence on fire. The said case was charge sheeted in C.C.No.114 of 2000 and was closed on the basis of the decision of Lok Adalath dated 15.04.2006. In fact, on the basis of the said criminal case, the police opened a history sheet against him in Histroy Sheet No.365 / 2005 on 30.09.2005. He came to know of the said histroy sheet only in the year 2009, when he was informed of the same in reply to a Right to Information Act application. In the said reply, it has been stated that two criminal cases were pending against him in Crime Nos.88 of 2008 and 124 of 2008 on the file of the 4th respondent police station. However, he was also honourably acquitted by the Assistant Session Court, Paramakudi by its order dated 06.01.2010 finding no evidence against him. Hence, the petitioner gave a representation to the 2nd respondent in person to remove his name from the rowdy list. So far no action has been taken, hence the petitioner before this Court.
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 exhanded regularly as per the Police Standing Order. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on records.
5. The issue involved in this writ 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 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
