Madras High CourtWP Crl.(MD)/461/2025disposed of

P. Vairamuthu v. The Superintendent Of Police

2025-07-10Honourable Mr Justice B.Pugalendhi5 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10.07.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI P.Vairamuthu ... Petitioner versus

1. The Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.

2.The Inspector of Police, Thirukattupalli Police Station, Thanjavur District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Thogur Police Station, Thanjavur District.

... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to remove the petitioner's name from History Sheet No.12 of 2018 maintained on the file of the 3rd respondent police as sought in the petitioner's representation dated 02.05.2025. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar For Respondents : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar, Additional Public Prosecutor 1/5

ORDER

The petitioner with a grievance that the respondent police have opened a history sheet as against the petitioner and also retaining the same for the past seven years unnecessarily, has filed this petition for a direction to the respondent police to remove the petitioner's name from the history sheet.

2.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent police have registered two cases as against this petitioner in Crime Nos. 121 of 2016 and 721 of 2017. The petitioner was tried in SplSC.No.53 of 2018 and CCC.No.274 of 2021 and after full fledged trial he has been acquitted in both cases on 03.08.2023 and on 12.02.2024 respectively. However the respondent police without reviewing the history sheet opened against the petitioner, are still retaining it. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the order of this Court in Thirumurugan Vs Superintendent of Police reported in 2020(2) Law Weekly (Crl) 266. 3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 2/5

respondent police on instructions submits that the petitioner has been acquitted in the above cases in the years 2023 and 2024 respectively. Therefore, he submits that they would review the history sheet against this petitioner in the next review meeting.

4.This Court considered the rival submissions made. 5.It appears that a history sheet was opened as against the petitioner pursuant to the cases registered the years 2016 and 2017. The respondent police are supposed to review the history sheet once in every two years and reasons must be assigned to retain the history sheet. However, in this case, it appears that it has not been reviewed and merely based on the registration of two cases against the petitioner in the years 2016 and 2017, the history sheet opened in the year 2018 is kept pending and the petitioner has also been acquitted of both cases in the year 2023 and 2024. Therefore, the petition is allowed. The history sheet opened as against the petitioner is hereby quashed.

10.07.2025 To 3/5

1. The Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.

2.The Inspector of Police, Thirukattupalli Police Station, Thanjavur District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Thogur Police Station, Thanjavur District.

4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

4/5

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

DSK 10.07.2025 5/5