T.Gnanam v. The Superintendent Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.12.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU T.Gnanam ..Petitioner Vs 1.The Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi Sub-Division, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.
3.The Inspector of Police, South Police Station, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.
..Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the respondents to remove the petitioner's name in the History Sheet list in H.S.No.188 of 1996 maintained in the 3rd respondent Police station.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Pragalathan For Respondents : Mr.V.Neelakandan Additional Public Prosecutor(Crl.side)
O R D E R
This petition has been filed to direct the respondents to remove the petitioner's name in the History Sheet list in H.S.No.188 of 1996 maintained in the 3rd respondent Police station. 2.According to the petitioner, the cases registered against the petitioner were ended in acquittal in the years 2012 and 2013. But, two cases registered under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act were pending before the Special Courts, Madurai, due to procedural delay. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the petitioner has admitted the case and paid fine amount, considering his girl children's future, the respondent police 1/4
registered a case under Section 110 of Cr.P.C, stating that the petitioner is a history sheeter in H.S.No.188 of 1996, on the file of the 3rd respondent. Hence, the petitioner sent a representation dated 27.11.2020 to the respondents, requesting them to remove his name from the History sheet list maintained by the 3rd respondent police. Since, no action has been taken, the petitioner is before this Court with the present Criminal Original Petition. 3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor(Crl.side) appearing for the respondents would submit that totally there were 27 previous cases against the petitioner, out of which, 12 cases has been registered under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and the petitioner was acquitted. He would strongly object to remove the name of the petitioner from the History Sheet. 4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor(Crl.side) appearing for the respondents.
5.The issue involved in this Writ Petition has already been dealt with by 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/Crime 4(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 2/4
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 Cr.P.C and moare than once under Section 110 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, mere registration of an FIR under Sections 109 and 110 of Cr.P.C 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 cities 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.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 27.11.2020 and pass appropriate orders, by following the guidelines issued in the order in W.P.(MD) No.19651 of 2017 dated 26.09.2018, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to say that the petitioner shall enclose the copy of the representation dated 27.11.2020 along with the copy of this order. 3/4
7.With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Records) // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) vrn 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 Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi Sub-Division, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.
3.The Inspector of Police, South Police Station, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+1cc to Mr.N.PRAGALATHAN, Advocate, SR No 26575 21.12.2020 kvn(CO) KK(04.02.2021) 4P 6C 4/4