ORDER :

The Writ Petition has been filed to direct the 2nd Respondent to remove the petitioner's name from the history sheet in H.S.No.237 / 2007 on the file of the 4th Respondent in accordance with the provision of Police Standing Order.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner belongs to an economically and socially weaker section and involved in protection and safeguarding of Human rights of socially weaker section for more than 9 years in that area.

3. Now, he is the Secretary of the organization of 'viduthalai siruthaikal katchi' and he is also fighting for the class of poor people.

4. He was falsely implicated by the fourth respondent in a case and so, history sheet was opened in 237 / 2007 and a case was registered in Crime No.351 of 2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 385, 506 (ii) of IPC and another case was registered in Crime No.94 of 2002 for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 147, 149, 212, 224, 225, 342, 353, 307, 506 (ii) of IPC r/w 25 (1) (a) of Arms Act and 3 of TNPPDL Act. He was punished and later, the punishment was modified for two years in Crime No.94 of 2002 in C.A.No.67 of 2007. Thereafter, the fourth respondent started surveillance against the petitioner. After the year of 2002, he was not involved in any other cases and he is leading his life in a peaceful manner. The respondent has not conducted proper enquiry, as per the Police Standing Order and for the purpose of maintaining the History Sheet, due to political motive, History Sheet was opened. The Police people have repeatedly visited the house of the petitioner, even during the night hours. So, he sent a representation on 06.11.2007. But, that was not considered. Seeking the writ of mandamus, this petition is filed.

5. Heard both sides.

6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even though he was involved in the cases in Crime No.94 of 2002 and Crime No.351 of 2007, after 2007, he was not involved in any other criminal cases and now, he is leading a peaceful life. History Sheet was opened in the year 2007 and renewed periodically. So, as per the Police Standing Order as well as a direction issued by this Court, in the batch of Writ Petitions and Criminal Original Petitions in Sabari @ Sabarigiri and Others Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District and Others has elaborately discussed the procedure to be followed by the authorities. This Court, on the basis of the judgment reported in Ganesan Vs. The District Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar, 2010 (6) CTC 507, which considered the entire case in much detailed manner has issued a series of guidelines to be followed by the authorities before and after opening the History Sheet. Paragraph number 7 has discussed the guidelines in this regard.

“7. From the above judgments the following principles emerge insofar as history sheeters are concerned :-

a. In order to facilitate the study of crime and criminals, the Police Standing Orders provides a mechanism, whereby every Police Station shall maintain a crime history, which shall be a confidential record. In this record all cases of crime that are mentioned in PSO No. 742, which provides various classes of crime, shall be entered and even an attempt to commit those offences, are entered in the records maintained in the Police Station.

b. These crime records maintained by the Various Police Stations shall be reviewed every year by the Inspector of Police of the concerned Police Station. On such review, the Inspector of Police has to furnish a concise appreciation of the year's crime for the benefit of the Superior Officers and also to make suggestions in order to improve the quality of crime control. The review undertaken by the Inspector of Police is not merely a catalogue of the crime in the year. It should reflect the valuable suggestions in order to prevent such crimes in future and to provide ways and means of handling serious offences in an effective manner.

c. History