Rengarajan.G v. The Superintendent Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN 1.G.Rengarajan 2.R.Saroja 3.R.Arasagopi
...Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.
2.The Inspector of Police, Vallam Police Station, Vallam, Thanjavur Taluk & District.
...Respondents
Prayer : This petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, by directing the first respondent to issue necessary direction to the second respondent to delete the petitioner's names from the history sheet of the second respondent police station based on the petitioner's representation dated 29.07.2020 made to the first respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Kannan For Respondents : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
ORDER
The prayer sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the first respondent to issue necessary direction to the second respondent to delete the petitioner's names from the history sheet of the second respondent police station based on the petitioner's representation dated 29.07.2020 made to the first respondent.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner belongs to the community, which is 1/5
marginalized in the Society. He would further submit that the Police of Karamapakudi, Pudukottai District, falsely implicated the petitioner, his brother and his parents as accused in the case of murder, took place in the year 1997. On 04.10.2021, we were found guilty under Section 302 IPC by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pudukottai and we were convicted and we were directed to undergo the life imprisonment and we were confined in the Central Prison, Trichy and his father had undergone the life imprisonment upto 15.09.20228 and his mother had undergone the life imprionment up to 01.11.2018 and the petitioner had undergone the life imprisonment up to 01.11.2018. It is noted that his father was released on premature on considering his old age.
He further submits that the second respondent registered false case against the petitioner and his family members. He further submits that in pursuance of the registration of the criminal case by the Karampakudi Police, the Karamapakudi Police opened the history sheet as against the petitioner's family members on 25.08.1999.
Since the petitioner's family shifted the residence to the address mentioned supra, the Superintendent of Police, Pudukottai District passed the order to the effect that the histroy sheet pending against the petitioner's family members has been transferred to the file of the second respondent Police Station, because our residence is coming under the jurisdiction of the second respondent police and as on date, the petitioner's family members are watched by the second respondent police, even though the petitioner's family are under the watch of the Probation Officer of the Thanjavur District. He further submit that after the petitioner's family release from the prison, we never indulged in such activities, which are prejudicial to the public order and public tranquility for the past two years and 11 months.
Whereas, contrary to the Act in force and police standing order, the second respondent police without following due process of laws, are harassing under the guise of enquiry. In continuation, in order to harass the petitioner and to restrict his movements, at the instigation of the superior officers in the Police Department, Histroy Sheeted Rowdy Book was opened at the second respondent police station and the petitioner was compelled to attend the police station in the pretext of enquiry in a routine manner. In this regard, the petitioner had already made representation on 29.07.2020 , to delete the History Sheet, but the respondents have not yet considered till date. Therefore, he sought for allowing the writ petition.
3. The learned learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner is an habitual offender indulging in rowdy activities, extortion, katta panchayats, etc. Hence, History Sheeted Rowdy Book was opened at the second respondent police station as against the petitioner and it is being extended regularly as per the Police Standing Order. He further submit that the representation of the petitioner before the first respondent has been now forwarded to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vallam, Thanjavur Distsrict and it is pending. Therefore, 2/5
he prays to dismiss the writ petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents.
5. The issue involved in this writ petition has already been dealt with by the Madurai Bench of 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 Histroy 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 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 3/5
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 CrPC and more than once under Section 110 of CrPC. Therefore, mere registration of an FIR under Sections 109 and 110 of CrPC 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 maintaing 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 citites 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. In veiw of the above circular passed by the Director General of Police, Chennai, this Court is inclined to pass the following orders :- (i) the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vallam, Thanjavur District is directed to consider the petitioner's representation, 4/5
dated 29.07.2020 and pass orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
7. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS I) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) sn To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.
2.The Inspector of Police, Vallam Police Station, Vallam, Thanjavur Taluk & District.
3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vallam, Thanjavur District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
25.03.2022 KG(CO) PA(07.04.2022) 5P 5C 5/5