Madras High CourtWP Crl./1475/2025disposed of

Amaresan v. The Commissioner Of Police

2025-11-27Honourable Mr Justice A.D.Jagadish Chandira6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 27.11.2025

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Amaresan

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Commissioner of Police, Salem City Police, Salem.

2.The Inspector of Police, B-2, Shevapet Police Station, Shevapet, Salem - 636 002.

3.The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Salem City Police, Salem.

...Respondents

(R3 suo motu impleaded by instant order) 1/6

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to remove petitioner's name from the history sheet bearing HS.No.368 of 2009 maintained on the file of the 2nd respondent Police Station, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 01.10.2024, within a time frame that may be fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner :

Mr. P.Vikramkumar For Respondents :

Mr. R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

ORDER

This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus, to direct the respondents to remove petitioner's name from the history sheet bearing HS.No.368 of 2009 maintained on the file of the 2nd respondent Police Station, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 01.10.2024, within a time frame that may be fixed by this Court. 2/6

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was falsely implicated in the cases in Crime No.184/2001 and Crime No.1359/2009; in both cases, he was acquitted in the years 2004 and 2011, respectively. It is the further case of the petitioner that with a mala fide intention, the 2nd respondent continues to maintain the history sheet in HS.No.368 of 2009, against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner made a detailed representation on 01.10.2024, seeking removal of his name from the history sheet. Aggrieved by the inaction on the side of the respondents, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Salem, is the jurisdictional officer to consider the representation of the petitioner.

4. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records.

3/6

5. Considering the fact that the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Salem District, is the authority to consider the petitioner's representation, this Court suo motu impleads the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Salem District, as the 3rd respondent in this petition.

6. The petitioner is directed to give a fresh representation along with a copy of this order to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Salem District. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Salem, shall consider the representation and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of fresh representation from the petitioner.

7. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. No costs.

27.11.2025 kan 4/6

To:

1.The Commissioner of Police, Salem City Police, Salem.

2.The Inspector of Police, B-2, Shevapet Police Station, Shevapet, Salem - 636 002.

3.The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Salem City Police, Salem.

5/6

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

kan 27.11.2025 6/6