P.Karunakaran v. The Principal Secretary,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.06.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN P.Karunakaran ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary, To Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 09.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Avadi Commissionerate, Thiruvallur District.
3.State, Inspector of Police, Minjur Police Station, Thiruvallur District.
4.State Inspector of Police, Kattur Police Station, Thiruvallur District.
... Respondents Prayer: Writ petition(Crl.) filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 02.07.2025 and set aside the history/rowdy sheet in H.S.No.09 of 2018 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Minjur Police Station, Thiruvallur District and direct the first respondent to remove the petitioner's name from the record of history
sheet.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.P.Saravanan For Respondents For R1 to 4 : Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side)
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 02.07.2025 and to set aside the history/rowdy sheet in H.S.No.09 of 2018 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Minjur Police Station, Thiruvallur District and also to direct the first respondent to remove the petitioner's name from the record of history sheet.
2.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in the past, the third respondent opened history sheet against the petitioner in the year 2018 in HS.No.9 of 2018, which is extended from to time. In the year 2018, FIR in crime No.168 of 2018 was filed by the fourth respondent against the petitioner for the offence under Section 480 of IPC, which is still pending. Apart from this criminal case, no other case is pending against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation before the second respondent on 02.07.2025 to remove
his name from the HS list. However, no reply has been given so far. 3.
The learned Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender. 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 respondents and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Avadi within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. (ii) On receipt of such representation, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Avadi 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. There shall be no order as to costs.
24.06.2026 Index : Yes/No : Yes/No Speaking/non-speaking order lok
To 1.The Principal Secretary, To Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 09.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Avadi Commissionerate, Thiruvallur District.
3. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Avadi 4.State, Inspector of Police, Minjur Police Station, Thiruvallur District.
5.State Inspector of Police, Kattur Police Station, Thiruvallur District.
6. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, lok 24.06.2026