Allowed

M.Vijayaraj, v. The Superintendent of Police

Madras HC6 Apr 2016WP/4130/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside an order rejecting a request to remove the petitioner's name from the police history sheet. Despite the petitioner's acquittal in all cases and the absence of pending charges since 2004, the Court found the justification for surveillance unsustainable. The respondents are directed to remove the petitioner's name.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; respondents directed to remove petitioner's name from history sheet maintained by respondent No.2.

M.Vijayaraj, Vs The Superintendent of Police — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 06.04.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA

¶5

W.P.No.4130 of 2016

¶6

M.Vijayaraj ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Kanchipuram District,
Kanchipuram.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Otteri Police Station,
Vandaloor,
Chennai-600 048. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in the order in
Na.Ka.No.Ji 1/278/47089/2015, dated 20.11.2015 passed by the 1 st
respondent and quashing the same and direct the respondents to
remove the petitioner's name from the history sheet maintained
by the respondent No.2.

¶7

For Petitioner :Mr.P.Pugalenthi For Respondents :Mr.P.Sanjay Gandhi Additional Government Pleader

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

The present Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in the order in Na.Ka.No.Ji 1/278/47089/2015, dated 20.11.2015, passed by the 1^st respondent, to direct the respondents to remove the petitioner's name from the history sheet maintained by the respondent No.2 and to quash the same.

¶10

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was acquitted from all the cases leveled against him and no case case is pending against the petitioner. However, the respondents has not removed the petitioner's name from the history sheet maintained by the respondent No.2. Therefore, he has given a representation dated 02.03.2014 to the

¶11

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶12

respondents to delete his name. But the same was not considered by the respondents. Hence, the petitioner has filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.27469 of 2015 and this Court vide order dated 02.09.2015 directed the 1^st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation within a period of six weeks. On 20.11.2015, his representation has been rejected and orders have been passed. Hence, this petition has been filed to set aside the order of rejection.

¶13

3.At this juncture, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was facing five criminal cases and admittedly, all the cases have been ended in acquittal. In Para 7 of the counter affidavit, it was stated that the petitioner is aged about 43 years, who was involved in the above mentioned cases and hence, the police surveillance is necessary, according to Police Standing Order 749(2A) and therefore, the name of the petitioner has been rightly included in the history sheet.

¶14

4.At the time of argument, the learned Additional Government Pleader fairly submitted that the petitioner was acquitted from all the cases.

¶15

5.Considering the rival submissions made on both sides that no case is pending against the petitioner and he was acquitted from all the cases, but, that factum was not considered by the respondents while passing the impugned order. In the impugned order, the respondent police has stated that he may likely commit offences. On perusal of Para 6 of the counter affidavit shows that after 2004-2005, the petitioner has not involved in any cases. Hence, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is unsustainable. Hence, it is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to remove the petitioner's name from the history sheet maintained by the respondent No.2.

¶16

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. mps

¶17

s/d-

¶18

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶19

True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶20

¶21

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

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

2.The Inspector of Police, Otteri Police Station, Vandaloor, Chennai-600 048.

¶24

- 1 cc to Mr.P.Pugalenthi, Advocate, SR 21914

¶25

- 1 cc to Govt.Pleader, High Court, Madras SR 22204

¶26

msm(co) prk28/4 W.P.No.4130 of 2016

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M.Vijayaraj, v. The Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Vijayaraj, v. The Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Swathy Vs State Rep by

A.Thirumugam Vs the Inspector of Police

K.Thangamani Vs the Superintendent of Police

Kulasekaran Vs State Rep by

A.Krishnamoorthy Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

P.Easwari Vs the Inspector of Police