V.Mohanraj v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.04.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN Crl.O.P.(MD)No.274 of 2021 V.Mohanraj ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Superintendant of Police, Dindigul District, 2.The Deputy Superintendant of Police, Town Sub Division, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Town North Police Station, ... Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to direct the respondents to review the history sheet maintained in the name of the petitioner namely V.Mohanraj, on the file of the third respondent and close the same. For Petitioner : Mr.AN.Ramanthan For Respondents : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi Government Advocate (crl.side)

ORDER

This criminal original petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to review the history sheet maintained in the name of the petitioner namely V.Mohanraj, on the file of the third respondent and close the same.

2.According to the petitioner, totally 15 cases have been registered against the petitioner, in which, one case was referred as mistake of fact, 8 cases were ended in acquittal and four cases were charge sheeted but not taken on file by the concerned court and two cases alone charge sheet was filed and trial is pending against the petitioner. In continuation, in order to harass the petitioner and to restrict his movements, at the instigation of the Superior Officers in the Police Department, History Sheeted Rowdy Book was opened at the third respondent police station and the petitioner was compelled to attend the police station in the pretext of enquiry in 1/3

a routine manner. In this regard, the petitioner had already made representation on 25.11.2020 to delete the name in the History Sheet, but the respondents have not yet considered till date. Therefore, he sought for allowing the criminal original petition. 3.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondents would submit that the the petitioner is an habitual offender indulging in rowdy activities, extortion, katta panchayats, etc. Hence, History Sheeted Rowdy Book was opened at the third respondent police station as against the petitioner. He would further submit that the petitioner is having 15 cases, out of which six cases are still pending. However, the authorities may consider the representation given by the petitioner on merits and pass appropriate orders within the time stipulated by this Court. 4.

Considering the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side), the third respondent is directed to consider the representation given by the petitioner on 25.11.2020 on merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, keeping in mind the guidelines issued in the decisions in Sabari @ Sabargiri Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Police, Annanagar (L&O) Range, Madurai City, Madurai and Others reported in 2018 4 MLJ (Crl) 585 and Thirumagan Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District reported in 2020 (2) LW (Crl-266).

5.With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Writs) // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) cp Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned. To 1.The Superintendant of Police, Dindigul District, 2/3

2.The Deputy Superintendant of Police, Town Sub Division, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Town North Police Station, 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+1 CC to M/s.AN.RAMANATHAN, Advocate ( SR-17486[F] dated 26/04/2021 ) 23.04.2021 KG(CO) TR(11.06.2021) 3P 6C 3/3