S.Vijayaraj v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.10.2018

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH W.P.[MD].No.19961 of 2018 S.Vijayaraj ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District Tirunelveli

2. The Additional Superintendent of Police Tirunelveli Tirunelveli District

3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Sankarankovil Tiruneveli District

4. The Inspector of Police Panavadali Chathiram Police Station Panavadali Chathiram Sankarankovil Taluk Tirunelveli District

...Respondents

PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to remove the petitioner's name from the History Sheet on the basis of the representation dated 05.04.2018. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Indrachithu For Respondents : Mr.M.Chandrasekaran Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking to remove the name of the petitioner from the History Sheet which is maintained in the fourth respondent police station in H.S.No.832 of 2016.

2. In this case the name of the petitioner was added in the History Sheet in the year 2016 in H.S.No.832 of 2016. The petitioner claims himself to be farmer by profession. A case was registered against the petitioner in the year 2014 in Crime No.04 of 2014 for offences under Section 379 of IPC on the ground of sand theft. Thereafter History Sheet has been opened against this petitioner in

the year 2016. In the year 2017 the respondent police registered another First Information Report in Crime No.34 of 2017 for offences under Sections 341,294(b),323 and 506(ii) of IPC. In this case final report has been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil and the case is pending. Subsequently the respondent police registered Crime No. 18 of 2018 against the petitioner under Section 110 of Cr.P.C this First Information Report has been closed as action dropped.

3. From the facts stated above, it is seen that the case of the petitioner does not fall under PSO No.747, since admittedly, the petitioner has not been convicted for any of the offences listed therein. Therefore, this case will fall under PSO No.746.

4. There are absolutely no materials produced before this Court or mentioned in the Counter affidavit to show that PSO No.748 (2) was followed to retain the name of the petitioner till the year 2018. There is nothing to show that the concerned Inspector of Police maintained the record and continuously entered the various instances of bad character exhibited by the petitioner as contemplated under PSO No.746(3) and 746(4). Apart from that there are absolutely no materials to show that an officer in the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police /Deputy Superintendent of Police objectively considered those materials placed by the Inspector of Police and gave reasons as to why the name of the petitioner should be continued as a history sheeter and passed a separate order in that regard.

This Court finds that these mandatory requirements were not fulfilled in this case. There is not even a mention in the Counter affidavit with regard to the order passed to retain the name of the petitioner after two years from the date on which the petitioner's name was added in the history sheet and there is also no mention about the yearly extensions for which specific and separate orders needs to be passed.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor produced the records maintained by the Inspector of Police, Kuruvikulam Police Station. In the said records it is seen that the entries have been made in a mechanical manner. Infact certain entries shows that the petitioner is a farmer and doing agricultural activities and therefore surveillance has been maintained against the petitioner . This shows the callous attitude on the part of the Inspector of Police in maintaining records. The continuation of the name of the petitioner in the history sheet is a clear abuse of process of law and the records produced before the court does not in any way justify in retaining the name of the petitioner in the History Sheet.

6.This case is covered by the judgment of this Court in W.P. (MD) No. 19651 of 2017 etc., batch dated 26.09.2018. 7.This Court finds that continuing to retain the name of the petitioner in the history sheet is illegal and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

8.In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the proceedings of the respondent Police in retaining the name of the petitioner as a history sheeter in HS No.832 of 2016 is hereby quashed and there shall be a direction to the respondent Police to remove the name of the petitioner from the record of history sheet rowdies. There shall be no orders as to costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(PROTOCOL) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-I) To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District Tirunelveli

2. The Additional Superintendent of Police Tirunelveli Tirunelveli District

3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Sankarankovil Tiruneveli District

4. The Inspector of Police Panavadali Chathiram Police Station Panavadali Chathiram Sankarankovil Taluk Tirunelveli District • 1 CC TO Mr.T.Indrachithu , ADVOCATE IN SR No.89848. +1 cc to Special Government Pleader, SR.No.90212. AAV DS RSK SAR1 14 11 2018 3P 7C W.P.[MD].No.19961 of 2018 10.10.2018