Disposed

Sahaya Arul v. The Superintendent of Police

Madras HC3 Sept 2019WP(MD)/15950/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner sought removal of his name from a police history sheet. Relying on a prior circular from the Director General of Police, the Court directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders on merits within two weeks before disposing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 29.04.2019 and pass orders within two weeks.

Sahaya Arul Vs The Superintendent of Police — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.15950 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED 03.09.2019

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.15950 of 2019

Sahaya Arul

..Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police Sivagangai District, Sivagangai

¶11

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Kalaiyarkovil, Sivagangai District

¶12

3.The Inspector of Police Kalaiyarkovil Police Station Sivagangai District ..Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to remove the petitioner's name from the history sheet in H.S.No.275 of 2018.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The prayer sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the respondents to delete the petitioner's name from the history sheet in H.S.No.275 of 2018.

¶16

The case of the petitioner is that he is doing business of crackers shop, for which, he renewed the license periodically. In the year 2018, when the petitioner applied for renewal of the license before the Fire Department, Kalaiyarkovil, for which, they demanded Rs.30,000/- as a bribe. Hence, the petitioner made a complaint before the Vigilance and Anticorruption Department, Sivagangai and they took action against the Fire Service Department Officer. Due to that with the instigation of the Fire Service https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Department Officer, the third respondent had foisted the false case

¶17

1/4

¶18

W.P(MD)No.15950 of 2019

¶19

against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a representation to the respondents on 29.04.2019 to remove his name from the History Sheet No.275 of 2018. So far no action has been taken, hence the petitioner before this Court.

¶20

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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.

¶21

4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on records.

¶22

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 :-

¶23

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 :-

¶24

"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.

¶25

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 .............

¶26

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

¶27

same ............. It will be of no use for

¶28

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

¶29

2/4

¶30

W.P(MD)No.15950 of 2019

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

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........"

¶34

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.

¶35

All Sub-Divisional Officers shall periodically review all History sheet files and Rowdy sheet files maintained in the Police Station under their jurisdiction.

¶36

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."

¶37

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. In veiw of the above circular passed by the Director

¶38

3/4

¶39

W.P(MD)No.15950 of 2019

¶40

General of Police, Chennai, this Court is inclined to pass the following orders :-

¶41

(i) the second respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 29.04.2019 and pass orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

¶42

With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

Assistant Registrar (AD-II)

¶45

// True Copy //

¶46

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶47

¶48

1.The Superintendent of Police Sivagangai District, Sivagangai

¶49

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Kalaiyarkovil, Sivagangai District

¶50

3.The Inspector of Police Kalaiyarkovil Police Station Sivagangai District.

¶51

+1 CC to M/s.S. PAKALAVAN, Advocate ( SR-85404[F] dated 05/09/2019 )

¶52

W.P(MD)No.15950 of 2019 03.09.2019

¶53

msa JMN(23.09.2019) 4P : 5C

¶54

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

¶55

4/4

Sahaya Arul v. The Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahaya Arul 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chinnadurai Vs The Superintendent of police

Sampathkumar Vs The Deputy Superintendent of police

R.Lokesh Vs the State Rep. by

Elilan Vs The Sup. of Police

K.Srinivasan Vs The Superintendent of police

P.Ravichandran Vs the Inspector of Police