Disposed¶52

Vasu v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC18 Feb 2025WP/18635/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

History sheet deletion; HS No.128 of 2013; History Sheeted Rowdy Book; Chengalpattu Taluk Police Station; rowdy sheet surveillance; habitual offender; katta panchayat allegation; representation dated 10.05.2023; Writ of Mandamus Article 226; W.P.(MD)No.19651 of 2017 order dated 26.09.2018; DGP circular Rc.No.133410/Crime4(3)/2018 dated 05.10.2018; PSO Nos.746 to 748; Sections 109 and 110 CrPC FIR practice; periodic review of history sheet files; Madras High Court; Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan; disposed with directions; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with directions: petitioner to submit a fresh representation within two weeks; first respondent Superintendent of Police, Chengalpattu District, to consider it in view of the Court's direction and pass orders on merits within twelve weeks. No costs. ¶52

Vasu Vs the Superintendent of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶52

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's name should be deleted from the History Sheet (HS. No.128 of 2013) maintained by the third respondent police station. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

In view of the DGP circular issued pursuant to the order dated 26.09.2018 in W.P.(MD)No.19651 of 2017, the Court directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation before the respondents within two weeks from receipt of a copy of the order.

¶50

Ratio / Principle

On receipt of the fresh representation, the first respondent (Superintendent of Police, Chengalpattu District) is directed to consider the representation, in view of the direction issued by this Court, and pass orders on merits within twelve weeks from receipt of the representation.

¶51

Key takeaways

The Court treated the issue raised in this writ petition as already dealt with by the Madurai Bench order dated 26.09.2018 in W.P.(MD)No.19651 of 2017 and the consequent DGP circular dated 05.10.2018, and accordingly disposed of the petition by issuing implementation directions rather than deciding the question afresh.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.No.18635 of 2023 (High Court of Judicature at Madras, decided 18.02.2025, G.K. Ilanthiraiyan J.): Petitioner Vasu filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus for deletion of his name from the History Sheet maintained at the third respondent Police Station as HS. No.128 of 2013, alleging foisted criminal cases and compelled attendance at the police station; his representation dated 10.05.2023 went unconsidered. Respondents contended he was an habitual offender and the History Sheeted Rowdy Book was expanded regularly as per the Police Standing Order. Observing that the issue had already been dealt with by the Madurai Bench order dated 26.09.2018 in W.P.(MD)No.19651 of 2017 and the DGP circular in Rc.No.133410/Crime4(3)/2018 dated 05.10.2018, the Court disposed of the petition with directions: the petitioner to submit a fresh representation within two weeks, and the first respondent Superintendent of Police, Chengalpattu District, to consider it and pass orders on merits within twelve weeks of receipt. No costs.

¶1

W.P.No.18635 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 18.02.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

W.P.No.18635 of 2023

Mr.Vasu

Petitioner

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

¶11

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chengalpattu, Chengalpattu District.

¶12

3.The Inspector of Police, Chengalpattu Taluk Police Station, Chengalpattu District.

¶13

....Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to delete the name of the petitioner from the History Sheet list maintained by the 3 rd respondent Police Station as HS. No.128 of 2013.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sasikumar For Respondents : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

Page 1 of 6

¶18

W.P.No.18635 of 2023

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The prayer sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the respondents to delete the petitioner's name in the History Sheet maintained by the 3 rd respondent Police Station as HS. No.128 of 2013.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is doing transport business under the name and style of “Amman Arul Transport Business” and also he is the active party member and the third respondent had registered false cases as against the petitioner. Thereafter, in order to wreck vengeances, plenty of criminal cases have been foisted as against the petitioner. In continuation, in order to harass the petitioner and to restrict his movements, at the instigation of the superior officers in the Police Department, History Sheeted Rowdy Book was opened at the third 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 a representation dated 10.05.2023 to delete the History Sheet, but the respondents have not yet considered till date. Therefore, he sought for

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

Page 2 of 6

¶24

W.P.No.18635 of 2023

¶25

allowing the writ petition.

¶26

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 expanded regularly as per the Police Standing Order. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶28

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/Crime4(3)/2018 dated 05.10.2018, which reads as follows :-

¶29

“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 History Sheet maintained in

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

Page 3 of 6

¶32

W.P.No.18635 of 2023

¶33

certain Police Stations and which are challenged before the Hon'ble Court, has observed and directed as follows :-

¶34

"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.

¶35

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

¶36

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.

¶37

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.

¶38

32.....................

¶39

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........"

¶40

2. Provisions contained in PSO 746 to 748 and the above orders of the Hon'ble High Court shall be followed scrupulously while maintaining the history sheets by the SHOs.

¶41

3. All Sub-Divisional Officers shall periodically review all

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

Page 4 of 6

¶44

W.P.No.18635 of 2023

¶45

History sheet files and Rowdy sheet files maintained in the Police Station under their jurisdiction.

¶46

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."

¶47

In view of the above circular issued by the Director General

¶48

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

¶49

(i) The petitioner is directed to submit a fresh representation before

¶50

the respondents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

¶51

(ii) On receipt of such representation, first respondent/the Superintendent of Police, Chengalpattu District, is directed to consider the representation, in view of the direction issued by this Court and pass orders on merits within the period of twelve weeks from the date of the receipt of the representation.

¶52