Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 50437
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Victoria Gowri, J
Jeyachandran – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Police – Respondent
WP CRL.(MD). No.3061 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K. M. Karunakaran
For the Respondents: D. Rajaboopathy
The maintenance and retention of a police history sheet must strictly adhere to Police Standing Orders, requiring objective assessment and reasoned orders to balance the objective of crime control with the fundamental rights of the individual under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Headnote:The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to remove his name from a police history sheet. The court examined the procedural requirements for opening and maintaining history sheets under the Police Standing Orders, emphasizing the need for an objective review and the requirement to balance public safety with the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The central issue was whether the retention of the petitioner's name in the history sheet was justified according to established legal principles and official circulars regarding the handling of history sheeters. The court held that police authorities must scrupulously follow Police Standing Orders, record valid reasons for retention, and avoid acting on whims, as branding a person as a history sheeter impacts their reputation and rights. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the authorities to consider the petitioner's representation on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of facts regarding the petitioner's request for removal from police history records. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. guidelines and legal requirements for maintaining and extending police history sheets under police standing orders. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. judicial direction to authorities to process the grievance in accordance with existing legal circulars. (Para 5 , 6) |
PRAYER :-
To issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to remove the petitioners name in History Sheet in H.S.No.73 of 2013 maintained by the 3rd respondent, based on the representation of the petitioner dated 02.06.2026 in accordance with law.
ORDER
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to remove the petitioner's name from the History Sheet in H.S.No. 1 of 2024, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 06.02.2026.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a Driver and also doing painting contract work and he has not involved in any of the criminal activities. He further submitted that the third respondent and other police officials, have registered nine(9) false cases as against the petitioner. The petitioner has been arrayed as accused in those cases and the same were culminated in filing a final report before various Courts in Trichy District. Without considering the same, the third respondent has opened the History Sheet in H.S.No.73 of 2013 as against the petitioner. Seeking removal of the same, this petition is filed.
3. 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. 66569/Crime 3(2)/2019 dated 24.04.2019, which reads as follows :-
“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 Sheet can be opened by the concerned Police Station under two circumstances. The first circumstance is provided under PSO No.746, which states that the history sheet can be opened against a person who is a resident (permanently or temporarily) within the station limit, who is known or believed to be addicted to commission of crime, whether convicted or not. Here the thrust is on the habituality or the propensity to commit a crime by a person, which is sought to be monitored by opening a history sheet.
d. The second category of persons against whom history sheet can be opened are the persons, who are convicted for various offences that has been listed in PSO No.747, wherein opening of the history sheet is automatic.
e. In the first category of opening history sheet, month wise scrutiny or a close watch on the person concerned is contemplated. Here also there is
