S.Muthuraja v. The Commissioner Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17-06-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN Muthuraja.S T/P.Sivasankaran, Flat No.139C First Floor, Lilavati Nagar Extension, Sikkarayapuram, Kundrathur, Chennai-600 069.
..Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai Metropolitan City, Chennai Commissioner Office, Chennai-600 007.
2. Deputy Commissioner of Police, No.36B, 2nd Cross Street, Pulla Avenue, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai-600 030.
3. Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), Valasaravakkam Valluvar Road, Andavar Nagar, Ramapuram Main Road, Chennai-600 089.
4. R9 Valasaravakkam Police Station, Seenirkuppam Road, Devikarumariamman Nagar, Valasaravakkam, Chennai-600 087.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd and 3rd respondent to delete the petitioner name from the history sheet rowdy list on the basis of his representation dated 06.02.2026 within the time framed by this Hon'ble Court. For Petitioner(s):
Mr.S.Kasirajan For Respondent(s):
Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side)
ORDER
The prayer sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to delete the petitioner's name in the History Sheet maintained in the fourth respondent police station. 2.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was earlier involved in Crime Nos.861 and 862 of 2023 on the file of R9 Valasaravakkam Police Station for offences relating to sale of prohibited tobacco products under Section 272 and 273 IPC read with Section 24(i) of the COTPA Act and on admission by the petitioner and paying of time, the said cases were disposed of on 31.07.2024 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Poonamallee. Subsequently, the petitioner's name was included in the History Sheet under PSO 110. Thereafter, a further case in Crime no.198 of 2025 was registered under Sections 296(b), 308(2) and 351(3) of the BNS, 2023 and he
was granted bail in the said case and subsequently acquitted oin 30.09.2025 in C.C.No.84 of 2025 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Poonamallee. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that except the above two cases, the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case and he is not a habitual offender and therefore, he sought for allowing the writ petition. 3.
The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner is an habitual offender indulging in sale of prohibited tobacco products. Hence, History Sheeted Rowdy Book was opened at the fourth 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 writ petition.
4.
Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.
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/Crime4(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 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 use for the respondent Police to keep the representation pending even without considering them and driving the concerned persons to file appropriate petition before this Court. This Court only hopes that the Police learns a lesson at least after the passing of this order, to be more sensitive and serious in maintaining history sheet.
31........... The Police seems to be adopting the practice of
registering FIRs against the persons under Sections 109 and 110 of CrPC, just to open the history sheet and to justify the continuance of the name of the persons in the history sheet. ............... automatic opening of history sheet can be done only if the person has been convicted more than twice under Section 109 of CrPC and more than once under Section 110 of CrPC. Therefore, mere registration of an FIR under Sections 109 and 110 of CrPC can never justify the action of the Police in continuing to retain the name of the person in the history sheet.
32.....................
33.This Court wants to make it clear that in all future cases, where the retention of the name of a person in history sheet becomes a subject matter of challenge before this Court, if this Court finds that the name of the person has been retained without any justification and is in contravention with PSO Nos.746 to 748 and the guidelines given by this Court, compensation will be granted to the victims and the same will be directed to be recovered from the monthly salary of the Inspector of Police in whose station the history sheet is being maintained........"
2. Provisions contained in PSO 746 to 748 and the above orders of the Hon'ble High Court shall be followed scrupulously while maintaining the history sheets by the SHOs.
3. All Sub-Divisional Officers shall periodically review all History sheet files and Rowdy sheet files maintained in the Police Station under their jurisdiction.
4. IGPs in Zones, COPs in citites and the SPs in District shall sensitize all the Police personnel working under their
jurisdiction in this regard and also review the cases periodically."
6.
In view of the above circular issued by the Director General of Police, Chennai, this Court is inclined to pass the following orders :- (i) The petitioner is directed to submit a fresh representation before the second respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
(ii) On receipt of such representation, the second respondent is directed to consider the representation, in view of the direction issued by this Court and pass orders on merits within the period of twelve weeks from the date of the receipt of the representation.
7.
With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
17-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order MTL
To
1. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai Metropolitan City, Chennai Commissioner Office, Chennai-600 007.
2. Deputy Commissioner of Police, No.36B, 2nd Cross Street, Pulla Avenue, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai-600 030.
3. Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), Valasaravakkam Valluvar Road, Andavar Nagar, Ramapuram Main Road, Chennai-600 089.
4. R9 Valasaravakkam Police Station, Seenirkuppam Road, Devikarumariamman Nagar, Valasaravakkam, Chennai-600 087.
5. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
MTL 17-06-2026