Madras High CourtMr.Sezhiyan vs The Superintendent Of Police on 12 October, 2020Author:R.PongiappanBench:R.PongiappanW.P.No.14483 of 2020\n\n                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\n                                                 DATED : 12.10.2020\n\n                                                        CORAM :\n\n                              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN\n\n                                                W.P.No.14483 of 2020\n\n                  Mr.Sezhiyan                                             ... Petitioner\n                                                              Vs\n                  1.The Superintendent of Police,\n                    Office of the Superintendent of Police,\n                    Cuddalore, Cuddalore District,\n                    Tamil Nadu.\n\n                  2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,\n                    Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police,\n                    Sethiyathope, Cuddalore District,\n                    Tamil Nadu.\n\n                  3.The Inspector of Police,\n                    Sethiyathope Police Station,\n                    Sethiyathope, Cuddalore district,\n                    Tamil Nadu.\n\n                  4.The Sub Inspector of Police,\n                    Orathur Police Station,\n                    Orathur, Bhuvanagiri Taluk,\n                    Cuddalore District, Tamil Nadu.\n\n                  5.The Sub-collector,\n                    Office of the Sub Collector,\n                    Chidambaram, Cuddalore District.                   ... Respondents\n\n                  1/10\n\n\nhttp://www.judis.nic.in\n                                                                                        W.P.No.14483 of 2020\n\n\n\n                  PRAYER: Writ Petition filed underArticle 226of the Constitution of India\n                  praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to remove the\n                  petitioner name from the history sheeted rowdy list S.No.24, on the file of the 3rd\n                  respondent police.\n\n\n                                       For Petitioner    : Mr.P.R.Thiruneelakandan.\n                                       For Respondents : Mrs.M.Prabhavathi,\n                                                         Additional Public Prosecutor.\n\n                                                        ORDERThe matter was heard through "Video Conference".2.This Writ Petition has been filed seeking direction, directing the\n\n                  respondent to remove the petitioner name from the history sheeted rowdy list\n\n                  S.No.24, on the file of the 3rd respondent police.3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit               the\n\n                  petitioner engage in political life and used to lead agitation etc., for certain common\n\n                  issues for the interest of the larger public and no case has been registered against\n\n                  the petitioner except one case in Crime No.155 of 2011 wherein the police alleged2/10http://www.judis.nic.inW.P.No.14483 of 2020that the petitioner's tractor was involved in illegal sand quarry. Therefore, he sought\n\n                  for allowing this petition.4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents\n\n                  submitted that the petitioner is an habitual offender indulging in rowdy activities,\n\n                  extortion, katta panchayats, etc. Hence, History Sheeted Rowdy Book was opened\n\n                  at the third respondent police station as against the petitioner and it is being\n\n                  extended regularly as per the Police Standing Order. Therefore, he prays to dismiss\n\n                  the Criminal Original Petition.5.Heard Mr.S.Doraisamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and\n\n                  Mrs.M.Prabhavathi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the\n\n                  respondents.6.The issue involved in this Criminal Original Petition has already been dealt\n\n                  with by the Madurai Bench of this Court and detailed order has been passed in\n\n                  W.P.(MD)No.19651 of 2017 on 26.09.2018. On the basis of the above said Order,\n\n                  the Director General Of Police, Chennai issued a circular in Rc.No. 66569/Crime3/10http://www.judis.nic.inW.P.No.14483 of 20203(2)/2019 dated 24.04.2019, which reads as follows :7.From the above judgments the following principles\n                          emerge insofar as history sheeters are concerned:a. In order to facilitate the study of crime and criminals,\n                          the Police Standing Orders provides a mechanism, whereby\n                          every Police Station shall maintain a crime history, which shall\n                          be a confidential record. In this record all cases of crime that\n                          are mentioned in PSO No.742, which provides various classes of\n                          crime, shall be entered and even an attempt to commit those\n                          offences, are entered in the records maintained in the Police\n                          Station.b. These crime records maintained by the Various Police\n                          Stations shall be reviewed every year by the Inspector of Police\n                          of the concerned Police Station. On such review, the Inspector of\n                          Police has to furnish a concise appreciation of the years crime\n                          for the benefit of the Superior Officers and also to make\n                          suggestions in order to improve the quality of crime control. The\n                          review undertaken by the Inspector of Police is not merely a\n                          catalogue of the crime in the year. It should reflect the valuable\n                          suggestions in order\n                          to prevent such crimes in future and to provide ways and means\n                          of handling serious offences in an effective manner.c. History Sheet can be opened by the concerned Police\n                          Station under two circumstances. The first circumstance is4/10http://www.judis.nic.inW.P.No.14483 of 2020provided under PSO No.746, which states that the history sheet\n                          can be opened against a person who is a resident (permanently\n                          or temporarily) within the station limit, who is known or believed\n                          to be addicted to commission of crime, whether convicted or not.\n                          Here the thrust is on the habituality or the propensity to commit\n                          a crime by a person, which is sought to be monitored by opening\n                          a history sheet.d. The second category of persons against whom history\n                          sheet can be opened are the persons, who are convicted for\n                          various offences that has been listed in PSO No.747, wherein\n                          opening of the history sheet is automatic.e. In the first category of opening history sheet, month\n                          wise scrutiny or a close watch on the person concerned is\n                          contemplated. Here also there is sub-catogrization as, close\n                          watch bad characters and non-close watch bad characters. In\n                          the former, the entry shall be made month wise and in the later,\n                          the entry shall be made once in a quarter. What is entered is\n                          normally anything of interest in respect of the bad character,\n                          which goes to the notice of the Police. These records must be\n                          checked and brought upto date once in a year. Here the main\n                          thrust is on ?Current Doings?.f. In the second category of opening history sheet, a mere\n                          act of conviction under the offences listed in PSO No.747 is\n                          enough. The name of the persons, who have been convicted for5/10http://www.judis.nic.inW.P.No.14483 of 2020those offences can be retained for a period of two years after\n                          their release from jail.g. PSO No.748, is the most important provision, which\n                          deals with discontinuance of history sheet. This provision is\n                          common to both the categories falling under PSO Nos.746 and747. As per PSO No.748,\n                          the Superintendent of Police may order a closure of a history\n                          sheet at any time. But, the Divisional Officer can order closure of\n                          history sheet only after the expiry of the period stipulated in PSO\n                          No.747.h. As per PSO 748, where retention of the history sheet is\n                          considered to be necessary, even after two years of registration,\n                          orders of an Officer of and above the rank of Assistant\n                          Superintendent of Police/ Deputy Superintendent of Police must\n                          be taken for extension for the first instance upto the end of next\n                          December. For further annual extension from January to\n                          December, separate orders must be passed every time by an\n                          Officer of and above the rank of Assistant Superintendent of\n                          Police / Deputy Superintendent of Police. This provision is made\n                          applicable even for rowdy sheeters.i. For the purpose of passing such orders, there must be\n                          valid materials available on record and it cannot be passed on\n                          the whims and fancies of the Police Officers. Therefore, the\n                          authority empowered to extend the period of retention of the6/10http://www.judis.nic.inW.P.No.14483 of 2020names of the persons in the history sheet, should record his\n                          reasons based on both objective and subjective instructions.j. Branding a person as a history sheeted rowdy, taints the\n                          name and image of the person. It is true that the entire purpose\n                          of maintaining a history sheet is to ensure public peace.\n                          However, it should be balanced with the fundamental right\n                          guaranteed to every citizen underArticle 21of the Constitution\n                          of India. Therefore, a fair and reasonable decision, based on\n                          the materials, with sufficient reasons, becomes                 sine\n                          qua non to retain the name of a person as a history sheeter\n                          beyond the period stipulated in the Police Standing Orders.k. This Court has time and again brought the above\n                          principle to the notice of the Higher Police Officials and in one\n                          of the judgments inManivanan Vs. Staterepresented by The\n                          District Collector, Coimbatore District and Others, reported in\n                          (2013) 7 MLJ 501,       this   Court felt that there is lack of\n                          understanding on the part of the Police in maintaining\n                          history sheet and therefore, directed the Director General of\n                          Police to issue necessary instructions / guidelines / circulars\n                          with regard to the manner in which it has to be maintained and\n                          the manner in which the orders will have to be passed for\n                          extension of the period to continue a person as a history sheeter.8.The above principles that has been culled out of various\n                          decisions of this Court will now be applied to each case in order7/10http://www.judis.nic.inW.P.No.14483 of 2020to see if the Police officials have scrupulously followed all the\n                           Police Standing Orders and the judgments of this Court, while\n                           retaining the name of a person as a history sheeter, beyond the\n                           stipulated period."7.In view of the above circular passed by the Director General of Police,\n\n                  Chennai, this Court is inclined to pass the following orders ;the third respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation\n\n                  and pass orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight\n\n                  weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.8.With the above directions, the Criminal Original Petition stands disposed\n\n                  of.12.10.2020\n\n                  ay\n\n                  Index: Yes/No\n                  Internet: Yes/No8/10http://www.judis.nic.inW.P.No.14483 of 2020To1.The Superintendent of Police,\n                    Office of the Superintendent of Police,\n                    Cuddalore, Cuddalore District,\n                    Tamil Nadu.2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,\n                    Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police,\n                    Sethiyathope, Cuddalore District,\n                    Tamil Nadu.3.The Inspector of Police,\n                    Sethiyathope Police Station,\n                    Sethiyathope, Cuddalore district,\n                    Tamil Nadu.4.The Sub Inspector of Police,\n                    Orathur Police Station,\n                    Orathur, Bhuvanagiri Taluk,\n                    Cuddalore District, Tamil Nadu.5.The Sub-collector,\n                    Office of the Sub Collector,\n                    Chidambaram, Cuddalore District.6.The Public Prosecutor,\n                    High Court of Madras,\n                    Chennai.9/10http://www.judis.nic.inW.P.No.14483 of 2020R.PONGIAPPAN, J.ayW.P.No.14483 of 2020Dated:12.10.202010/10http://www.judis.nic.in