Senthilnathan vs The State of Tamilnadu

Court
Madras High Court

WP Crl.(MD) No. 5790 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 27-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
WP Crl.(MD) No. 5790 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011484602026}
Senthilnathan
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State of Tamilnadu
Represented by its,
The Superintendent of Police,
Sivagangai District,
Sivagangai.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Devakottai Circle,
Sivagangai District.
3. The Inspector of Police, (Law and Order)
Devakottai Town Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
st
India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1
nd
and 2 respondents herein to remove the petitioner's name from the
history sheet in H.S.No. 02/2025 on the file of the 3rd respondent by
considering the petitioner’s representation dated 24.08.2026 within a
stipulated time.
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Pradeep T for
M.Jegadeesh Pandian
For Respondent(s) : Mr.D.Rajaboopathy
Government Advocate (Crl.)
__________
Page  1  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 06:46:07 pm )

WP Crl.(MD) No. 5790 of 2026
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the
respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 24.08.2026
seeking to remove his name from the history sheet No.02 of 2025 on the
rd
file of the 3 respondent herein, within time stipulated by this Court.
2. The petitioner has sent a representation on 24.08.2026 to the
respondents seeking to remove his name from the History Sheet No.02 of
2025. Since the same was not considered, this writ petition is filed.
3. 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. 66569/Crime 3(2)/2019 dated 24.04.2019, which reads
as follows :~-
“7. From the above judgments the following principles
emerge insofar as history sheeters are concerned:
a. In order to facilitate the study of crime and criminals,
the Police Standing Orders provides a mechanism, whereby
every Police Station shall maintain a crime history, which
shall be a confidential record. In this record all cases of
crime that are mentioned in PSO No.742, which provides
__________
Page  2  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 06:46:07 pm )

WP Crl.(MD) No. 5790 of 2026
various classes of crime, shall be entered and even an attempt
to commit those offences, are entered in the records
maintained in the Police Station.
b. These crime records maintained by the Various
Police Stations shall be reviewed every year by the Inspector
of Police of the concerned Police Station. On such review, the
Inspector of Police has to furnish a concise appreciation of
the year-s crime for the benefit of the Superior Officers and
also to make suggestions in order to improve the quality of
crime control. The review undertaken by the Inspector of
Police is not merely a catalogue of the crime in the year. It
should reflect the valuable suggestions in order to prevent
such crimes in future and to provide ways and means of
handling serious offences in an effective manner.
c. History Sheet can be opened by the concerned Police
Station under two circumstances. The first circumstance is
provided under PSO No.746, which states that the history
sheet can be opened against a person who is a resident
(permanently or temporarily) within the station limit, who is
known or believed to be addicted to commission of crime,
whether convicted or not. Here the thrust is on the habituality
or the propensity to commit a crime by a person, which is
sought to be monitored by opening a history sheet.
d. The second category of persons against whom history
sheet can be opened are the persons, who are convicted for
various offences that has been listed in PSO No.747, wherein
opening of the history sheet is automatic.
__________
Page  3  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 06:46:07 pm )

WP Crl.(MD) No. 5790 of 2026
e. In the first category of opening history sheet, month
wise scrutiny or a close watch on the person concerned is
contemplated. Here also there is sub~categorization as, close
watch bad characters and non~close watch bad characters.
In the former, the entry shall be made month wise and in the
later, the entry shall be made once in a quarter. What is
entered is normally anything of interest in respect of the bad
character, which goes to the notice of the Police. These
records must be checked and brought up to date once in a
year. Here the main thrust is on “Current Doings“.
f. In the second category of opening history sheet, a
mere act of conviction under the offences listed in PSO
No.747 is enough. The name of the persons, who have been
convicted for those offences can be retained for a period of
two years after their release from jail.
g. PSO No.748, is the most important provision, which
deals with discontinuance of history sheet. This provision is
common to both the categories falling under PSO Nos.746
and 747. As per PSO No.748, the Superintendent of Police
may order a closure of a history sheet at any time. But, the
Divisional Officer can order closure of history sheet only
after the expiry of the period stipulated in PSO No.747.
h. As per PSO 748, where retention of the history sheet
is considered to be necessary, even after two years of
registration, orders of an Officer of and above the rank of
Assistant Superintendent of Police/ Deputy Superintendent of
Police must be taken for extension for the first instance up to
the end of next December. For further annual extension from
__________
Page  4  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 06:46:07 pm )

WP Crl.(MD) No. 5790 of 2026
January to December, separate orders must be passed every
time by an Officer of and above the rank of Assistant
Superintendent of Police / Deputy Superintendent of Police.
This provision is made applicable even for rowdy sheeters.
i. For the purpose of passing such orders, there must be
valid materials available on record and it cannot be passed
on the whims and fancies of the Police Officers. Therefore,
the authority empowered to extend the period of retention of
the names of the persons in the history sheet, should record
his reasons based on both objective and subjective
instructions.
j. Branding a person as a history sheeted rowdy, taints
the name and image of the person. It is true that the entire
purpose of maintaining a history sheet is to ensure public
peace. However, it should be balanced with the fundamental
right guaranteed to every citizen under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. Therefore, a fair and reasonable
decision, based on the materials, with sufficient reasons,
becomes sine qua non to retain the name of a person as a
history sheeter beyond the period stipulated in the Police
Standing Orders.
k. This Court has time and again brought the above
principle to the notice of the Higher Police Officials and in
one of the judgments in Manivanan Vs. State represented by
The District Collector, Coimbatore District and Others,
reported in (2013) 7 MLJ 501, this Court felt that there is lack
of understanding on the part of the Police in maintaining
history sheet and therefore, directed the Director General of
__________
Page  5  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 06:46:07 pm )

WP Crl.(MD) No. 5790 of 2026
Police to issue necessary instructions / guidelines / circulars
with regard to the manner in which it has to be maintained
and the manner in which the orders will have to be passed for
extension of the period to continue a person as a history
sheeter.”
4. The above principles that have been culled out of various
decisions of this Court will now be applied to each case in order to see if
the Police officials have scrupulously followed all the Police Standing
Orders and the judgments of this Court, while retaining the name of a
person as a history sheeter, beyond the stipulated period.
5. In terms of the above circular passed by the Director General of
rd
Police, Chennai, this Court directs the 3 respondent to consider the
petitioner’s representation dated 24.08.2026 and pass orders, on merits
and in accordance with law, within a period of four (4) weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
27-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Rmk
__________
Page  6  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 06:46:07 pm )

WP Crl.(MD) No. 5790 of 2026
To
1. The Superintendent of Police
Sivagangai District
Sivagangai
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Devakottai Circle
Sivagangai District
3. The Inspector of Police, (Law and Order)
Devakottai Town Police Station
Sivagangai District
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Madurai
__________
Page  7  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 06:46:07 pm )

WP Crl.(MD) No. 5790 of 2026
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.
Rmk
WP Crl.(MD) No. 5790 of 2026
27-10-2026
__________
Page  8  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 06:46:07 pm )