A. Dhanasekaran v. The Superintendent Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 15/10/2020 PRESENT The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and WMP(MD)No.5805 of 2016 A.Dhanasekaran : Petitioner Vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
2.The Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Sivagangai.
:Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to remove the petitioner's name from the rowdy list displayed in the Notice Board in the second respondent police station in History Sheet No.726/2003 by considering representation of the petitioner, dated 29.03.2016.
For Petitioner :Mr.V.Sasikumar For Respondents :Mr.R.Erottuchamy Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
O R D E R
The prayer sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the respondents to remove the petitioner's name from the rowdy list in H.S.No.726/2003 in the second respondent police, by considering representation of the petitioner, dated 29.03.2016.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the President of Maruthupandiyar Nagar Government Hr.Sec.School Education Committee and he is also doing a business of real estate and travels. Previously seven cases have been registered by the second respondent police as against him and out of which, six cases got acquittal and one remaining case is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivagangai in Crime No.109 of 2003. For the past 10 years, no single case has been registered against him and he is a representative of people and 1/5
sincerely working for welfare of his ward people in Sivagangai District. Though he is not convicted in any one of the Criminal case so far, the second respondent police with an ulterior motive has opened a History Sheet (Rowdy List) in his name. Hence, the petitioner gave a representation to the second respondent in person to remove his name from the rowdy list. So far no action has been taken, hence the petitioner before this Court. 3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.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 third respondent police station as against the petitioner and it is being exhanded regularly as per the Police Standing Order. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.
4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on records. 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 2/5
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 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.
3/5
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 view of the above circular passed by the Director General of Police, Chennai, this Court is inclined to pass the following orders :- (i) It is seen that the petitioner has given a representation as early as on 20.03.2013 & 29.03.2016, thereafter he has not given any representation to the concerned respondent. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is at liberty to submit a fresh representation before the third respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
(ii) On receipt of such representation, the third respondent is directed to pass orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of representation of the petitioner.
7. With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar // True Copy // / /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) vsd To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
2.The Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Sivagangai.
4/5
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai.
and WMP(MD)No.5805 of 2016 15.10.2020 SE(CO) NR (03/11/2020) 5P : 4C 5/5