K.Ravi Kumar v. The Commissioner Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.04.2025 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL K.Ravi Kumar ... Petitioner Vs
1. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, O/o the Commissioner of Police, 1/165, Alagar Kovil Road, Madurai District.
2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Law and Order), O/o the Commissioner of Police, 1/165, Alagar Kovil Road, Madurai District.
3. The Inspector of Police, C-3, SS Colony Police Station, Ellis Nagar, Madurai.
... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents close the History Sheet of the Petitioner in H.S.No.11/2003 before the 3rd respondent Police, based on the representation sent by the petitioner dated 29.03.2025.
1/6
For Petitioner : Mr.Niranjan S. Kumar For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi (R1-R3) Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondents close the History Sheet of the Petitioner in H.S.No.11/2003 before the 3rd respondent Police, based on the representation sent by the petitioner dated 29.03.2025.
2.According to the petitioner, the third respondent opened history sheet against the petitioner in HS No. 11 of 2003. As against the petitioner, 21 cases have been registered and out of which, 12 cases have been acquitted and now, 6 cases are pending against the petitioner. While so, the third respondent still maintaining history sheet in the name of the petitioner without conducting periodical review in terms of Police Stating Order 748(1). Therefore, the petitioner has sent a representation on 29.03.2025 through registered post and in person on 02.04.2025 to the third respondent, but the same were not considered. Hence, this petition, 2/6
3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police would submit that the petitioner has so many previous cases to his credit. Therefore, history sheet was opened in the name of the petitioner in HS No. 11 of 2003 and as of now, 6 cases are pending against the petitioner. Therefore, history sheet is still pending against the petitioner. However, the 2nd respondent will consider representation of the petitioner and take appropriate decision in accordance with law.
4.Considering the prayer sought for by the petitioner and the second respondent has also admitted the receipt of the representation of the petitioner, this Court hereby directs the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and take appropriate action in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of this order. It is needless to mention that while considering the representation of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent shall follow the decisions of this Court in this regard scrupulously and also Police Stating Order 748.
3/6
5.At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner also requested this Court to consider the representation of the petitioner that in all police records, the name of the petitioner has been described as Dog Ravi instead of Ravi. Hence, the respondent police may be directed to correct the name of the petitioner as 'Ravi' in all their records. 6.In view of the said submission, the 2nd respondent is hereby directed to consider the plea of the petitioner in correcting his name as Ravi instead of Dog Ravi, as per records. 7.With the above observations and directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of.
16.04.2025 Internet :Yes Index :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No PNM 4/6
To
1. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, O/o the Commissioner of Police, 1/165, Alagar Kovil Road, Madurai District.
2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Law and Order), O/o the Commissioner of Police, 1/165, Alagar Kovil Road, Madurai District.
3. The Inspector of Police, C-3, SS Colony Police Station, Ellis Nagar, Madurai.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6
P.DHANABAL , J.
PNM ORDER IN 16.04.2025 6/6