H.Venkatesan v. The State Represented By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 20.05.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P.No.12058 of 2021 H.Venkatesan

...Petitioner

Versus

1. The State represented by The District Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

2. The Inspector of Police, Sethia Thoppu Police Station, Cuddalore District.

...Respondents

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to remove the name of the petitioner from the HISTORY SHEET No.27 of 2007 on the file of Inspector of Police, Sethiathoppu Police Station, the Second Respondent herein, by consider the representation of the petitioner dated 20.04.2021 on the file of First Respondent herein to secure the ends of justice and thus render justice.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu For Respondents : Mr.L.Baskaran Counsel for Government (Crl. Side)

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed for the issue of writ of mandamus directing the respondent police to remove the name of the petitioner from History Sheet maintained by the 2nd respondent in H.S.No.27 of 2007.

2.The case of the petitioner is that he is working as a Supervisor in Sethiathoppu M.R.K. Co-operative Sugar Mill, Sethiathoppu and the Trade Union leader of VCK Party wing and he is a Secretary of Workers Munnani Peravai (Sugar). According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent had registered FIRs against

the petitioner before the year 2008 as and when the petitioner participated in any agitation. The further case of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent had mechanically opened the History Sheet against the petitioner in H.S.No.27 of 2007. 3.The petitioner made a representation on 20.04.2021, requesting the 1st respondent to remove his name from the History Sheet. Since, the same was not considered, the present petition has been filed before this Court.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though many contentions have been raised, however, without going into the same, it would suffice if a direction is issued to the respondent to consider the representation and pass orders on the same within a particular time frame fixed by this Court.

5. On the above contention, this Court heard the learned counsel for Government (Criminal Side) who has no objection to this Court passing an order for consideration of the representation submitted by the petitioner.

6. In view of the limited relief sought for, this Court, without going into the merits of the contentions raised by either side, directs the 1st respondent to consider the representation made by the petitioner on 20.04.2021 strictly in accordance with the guidelines issued by this Court in the case of Sabari vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Madurai City and Others reported in 2018 4 MLJ Crl 585 and in the case of Thirumagan and Others Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District and Others reported in 2020 2 LW Crl 266 and pass orders on the said representation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 7.This writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No Costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar bkn/ssr To

1. The District Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

2. The Inspector of Police, Sethia Thoppu Police Station, Cuddalore District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

W.P.No.12058 of 2021 pp[co] srg 10/06/2021