J.Sulthan Nazar v. The Superintendent Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 26.04.2019

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No.11406 of 2019 J.Sulthan Nazar .. Petitioner Vs 1.The Superintendent of Police Tirupur District, Tirupur 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Udumalpet, Tirupur District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Udumalpet Police Station, Udumalpet, Tirupur District.

.. Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to direct the 1st respondent to remove my name J.Sulthan Nazar, S/o. A.K.Jabir in History Sheet/K.D.Sheets/Rowdy Sheets, on the file of 3rd respondent police, the Inspector of Police, Udumalpet Police Station, Udumalpet, Tirupur District.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Saravanan For Respondents: Mr.C.Raghavan Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)

O R D E R

This petition has been filed seeking direction to 1st respondent to remove my name J.Sulthan Nazar, S/o. A.K.Jabir in History Sheet/K.D.Sheets/Rowdy Sheets, on the file of 3rd respondent police, the Inspector of Police, Udumalpet Police Station, Udumalpet, Tirupur District.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the Vice Secretary of Manitha Neya Makkal Katchi, a political party for the past ten years and doing car sales business. He was arrested in the year 1997 in Crime No.961 of 1997 on the file of the 3rd

respondent police. Since the case is pending for trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, for the offences under Section 120(B) (1) r/w 302,307 IPC, Section 3,4(b) and 6 of Explosive substance Act 1908 and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu property (Prevention of Damage and loss) Act 1992. In this regard, the petitioner filed an appeal before this Court. Eventhough the petitioner did not involve in any illegal activities, his name has been implicated in the history sheet list only for the political motivation by the third respondent. Hence, at the instigation of the superior officers in the Police Department and in continuation to restrict his movements and to harass the petitioner. In order to wreck vengeance, plenty of criminal cases have been falsely foisted as against the petitioner.

History Sheeted Rowdy Book was opened at the third respondent police station and the petitioner was compelled to attend the police station under the pretext of enquiry in a routine manner. In this regard, the petitioner had made a representation on 08.04.2019 before the first and second respondents to delete his name from the History Sheet, but the first and second respondent has not taken any action in this regard. Therefore, he sought for allowing this petition. 3.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents submitted that several cases have been filed against the petitioner. Hence, History Sheeted Rowdy Book was opened at the third respondent police station as against the petitioner and it is being updated regularly as per the Police Standing Order. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the petition. 4.

Heard Mr.C.Raghavan, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents.

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/Crime 4(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 Histroy 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 maintaing 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 veiw of the above circular passed 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 third 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 third respondent is directed to remove the name of the petitioner from the history sheet maintained by the third respondent Police Station. 7.

With the above directions, the Criminal Original petition stands allowed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar vsn To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Tirupur District, Tirupur

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Udumalpet, Tirupur District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Udumalpet Police Station, Udumalpet, Tirupur District.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

+1 cc to Mr.S.Saravanan, Advocate, Sr.No. 40769 Crl.O.P.No.11406 of 2019 NIR(CO) CSL/25.06.2019