Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 756
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Sirajudeen - Petitioner
Versus
The Superintendent of Police, O/o. The Superintendent of Police, Anaikuppam, Cuddalore & Another - Respondents
Crl. O.P. No. 11992 of 2020 & Crl. M.P. No. 4775 of 2020
Decided On : 07-08-2020
For the Petitioner:A. Raja Mohamed, Advocate.
For the Respondents: S. Karthikeyan, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The court emphasized the importance of justifying the retention of names in the History Sheet as per the guidelines and provisions of PSO 746 to 748 and CrPC Sections 109 and 110.
Headnote:
Criminal Original Petition - Removal of Name from History Sheet - PSO 746 to 748, CrPC Sections 109 and 110 - The court directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation and ordered the respondents to consider the representation and pass orders on merits within a specified period.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought the removal of his name from the History Sheet maintained by the 2nd respondent Police Station, citing that the entries were contrary to law as the cases were disposed in his favor due to insufficient evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation and ordered the respondents to consider the representation and pass orders on merits within the period of four weeks.
Issues: Dispute over the maintenance of the petitioner's name in the History Sheet despite the disposal of cases in his favor.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for police to review and justify the retention of names in the History Sheet, as per the guidelines and provisions of PSO 746 to 748 and CrPC Sections 109 and 110.
Final Decision: The Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of with the direction for the petitioner to submit a fresh representation and for the respondents to consider and pass orders on merits within a specified period.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to direct the respondents to remove the name of the petitioner from the History Sheet maintained in H.S. No.152 of 2016 on the file of the respondents.)
This petition has been filed for a direction directing the respondents to delete the petitioner’s name in the History sheet maintained in the 2nd respondent Police Station.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was elected as a President of Village Panchayat in Kollumedu, Cuddalore District during the year 2011 2016, and he has contested as an independent candidate and won the election against Mr. Shafiq Rahman, Ex President of the Panchayat, who was supported by Mr. A.V. Abdul Nasar. He would submit that because of getting defeated in the election, Mr. A.V. Abdul Nasar felt ashamed and started to create hurdles to the petitioner while performing his duties and to show his political influence, he had illegally constructed a party office at the panchayat land, for which the petitioner opposed and asked him to vacate the panchayat land, which he illegally encroached. However, to get revenge for his defeat and by colluding with the 2nd respondent, Mr. A.V. Abdul Nazar fabricated false case against the petitioner without following due process of law and with malafide intention, the 2nd respondent had registered 3 F.I.R.s against the petitioner, which subsequently disposed in favour of petitioner by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kattumannarkoil for not having sufficient evidences against the petitioner. After which, no other cases registered against the petitioner. Hence, entering the name of the petitioner in the history sheet record for non cognizable offences, which are already disposed in favour of petitioner for insufficient evidences, is contrary of law. Therefore, he prayed to direct the respondents to remove the name of petitioner from the history sheet maintained by the respondents.
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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 2nd respondent police station as against the petitioner and it is being expanded regularly as per the Police Standing Order. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the Criminal Original Petition.
4. Heard Mr. A. Raja Mohamed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S. Karthikeyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
5. The issue involved in this Criminal Original 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 History 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 representatio
