G.Raghupathy Vs the Commissioner of Police

PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction, to call for the records relating to the order dated 27.01.2025 passed by the fourth respondent and quash the same consequently direct the third respondent herein to remove the petitioner's name from the history sheet bearing H.S.No.01/12 dated 12.01.2012 maintained by them.

¶15

1/7

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.No.8984 of 2025

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Vishnu

¶19

For Respondents : Mr. K.M.D.Muhilan Additional Public Prosecutor

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The Writ Petition has been filed seeking to set aside the order passed by the fourth respondent dated 27.01.2025 and to direct the third respondent

¶22

to remove the petitioner's name from the History Sheet maintained against him .

¶23

The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner is running a Collection and Recovery Agency in the name and style of Sri Ragavendra RSM at Chennai. Initially, on account of a property dispute, two criminal cases were registered against the petitioner, one in Crime No.698 of 2006 for the offences under Sections 448, 324 and 506(ii) IPC and another in Crime No.245 of 2010 for the o ffences under Sections 341, 324, 506(ii) IPC r/w 34 IPC. Subsequently, he was also implicated in a murder case registered in Crime No.318 of 2010. Further, in order to detain him under Act 14, another case in Crime No.431 of 2012 was registered against him. Thereafter, in order to harass the petitioner and restrict his movements, even though, the petitioner has not involved himself in any further criminal activities, a History Sheeted Rowdy 2/7

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.No.8984 of 2025

¶26

Book was opened against him in H.S.No.01/12 dated 12.01.2012, at the instigation of the superior officers in the Police Department.

¶27

He further contended that though the petitioner has been acquitted in all the aforesaid cases, his name has not been removed from the History sheet,. Hence, he sent a representation to the respondent Police requesting to remove his name from the history sheet. Since no action was taken, he approached this Court in W.P.No.8532 of 2024 and this Court, by an order dated 01.04.2024, directed the fourth respondent to consider the petitioner's representation in terms of Police Standing Orders 747 and 748 and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. However, the fourth respondent rejected the representation stating that there is no provision under Police Standing Orders 747 and 748 for closing the history sheet. Against which, the present petition has been filed.

¶28

The respondent Police has filed a counter, wherein, it is stated that the History Sheet in H.S.No.01/12 was opened on 12.01.2012 on the order passed by the third respondent, based on the criminal breach of peace committed by the petitioner, and the same is still being maintained by the fourth respondent. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been acquitted

¶29

3/7

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.No.8984 of 2025

¶32

in all the cases registered against him.

¶33

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record including the counter filed by the respondents.

¶34

It is relevant to note that the History Sheets are to be opened against the persons residing permanently or temporarily within the station limits who are known or believed to be addicted to or to aid and abet the commission of crime, whether convicted or not, or who are believed to be habitual receivers. As per Police Standing Order 747, History Sheets shall be opened automatically at the time of conviction for persons and shall be retained for two years after release from jail. However, Order No.747 need not be strictly applied to such persons, but History Sheets should be opened under that order in respect of individuals for whom the Superintendent or Sub-Divisional Officer thinks it advisable on account of their active criminality.

¶35

Admittedly, in this case, the History Sheet was opened in the name of the petitioner in 2012 and except for one murder case, all other cases were for minor offences and that the petitioner was acquitted in all cases. Therefore, retaining the History Sheet would cause stigma to the

¶36

4/7

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.No.8984 of 2025

¶39

petitioner.

¶40

Police Standing Order 748, which deals with the Discontinuance of History Sheets, provides that History Sheets shall be closed by the

¶41

definite orders of an officer of and above the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police or Deputy Superintendent of Police and shall be filed in the station. However, in the present case, the impugned order has been passed by an Inspector of Police, which is totally against the Police Standing Order 748. Therefore, the impugned order dated 27.01.2025 passed by the fourth respondent is liable to be set aside.

¶42

Considering the facts and the nature of the cases registered against the petitioner and the fact that the History Sheet has been maintained since 2012, this Court directs the respondent Police to consider the representation and pass an appropriate order for removal of petitioner's name from the History Sheet. Such exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶43

10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs.

¶44

5/7

¶45

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

¶46

W.P.No.8984 of 2025

¶47

ham

¶48

18.09.2025