M.Syed Ibrahim vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep., by

Court
Madras High Court

WP Crl.(MD) No. 6007 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 05-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN
THILAKAVADI
WP Crl.(MD) No. 6007 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011556232026}
M.Syed Ibrahim ..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep., by
The Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City,
Madurai.
2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (North),
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Alagarkovil Road,
Madurai - 625 007.
3. The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Anna Nagar Range,
First Floor,
Anna Nagar Police Station,
K.K.Nagar Main Road,
Madurai - 625 020.
4. The Inspector of Police (L andO),
Anna Nagar Police Station,
K.K.Nagar Main Road,
Madurai City - 625 020.
5. The Inspector of Police (L and O)
Theppakulam Police Station,
Near Munichalai Signal,
Madurai City- 625 009 ..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS directing the respondents to
__________
Page  1  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:17:59 pm )

WP Crl.(MD) No. 6007 of 2026
remove the History Sheet maintained against the petitioner based on the
Petitioners representation dated 11.10.2026.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.M.Seeni Sulthan
For Respondent(s) : Mr.D.Rajaboopathy
Government Advocate (Crl. side)
ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to
remove the petitioner's name from the History Sheet, based on the
petitioner's representation dated 11.10.2026.
2. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 11.10.2026 to the
respondents, seeking the removal of his name from the History Sheet
maintained by the fourth respondent. Since the said representation has not
been considered, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
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 :~-
__________
Page  2  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:17:59 pm )

WP Crl.(MD) No. 6007 of 2026
“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 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
__________
Page  3  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:17:59 pm )

WP Crl.(MD) No. 6007 of 2026
history sheet is automatic.
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 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.
__________
Page  4  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:17:59 pm )

WP Crl.(MD) No. 6007 of 2026
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 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
__________
Page  5  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:17:59 pm )

WP Crl.(MD) No. 6007 of 2026
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
Police, Chennai, this Court directs the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the
petitioner’s representation dated 11.10.2026 and pass orders, on merits
and in accordance with law, within a period of six (6) weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
05-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
sji
To
1. The Commissioner of Police
Madurai City
Madurai
2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (North)
Office of the Commissioner of Police
Alagarkovil Road
Madurai - 625 007
__________
Page  6  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:17:59 pm )

WP Crl.(MD) No. 6007 of 2026
3. The Assistant Commissioner of Police
Anna Nagar Range
First Floor
Anna Nagar Police Station
K.K.Nagar Main Road
Madurai - 625 020
4. The Inspector of Police (L andO)
Anna Nagar Police Station
K.K.Nagar Main Road
Madurai City - 625 020
5. The Inspector of Police (L and O)
Theppakulam Police Station
Near Munichalai Signal
Madurai City- 625 009
6. The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Madurai
__________
Page  7  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:17:59 pm )

WP Crl.(MD) No. 6007 of 2026
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.
sji
WP Crl.(MD) No. 6007 of 2026
05-11-2026
__________
Page  8  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:17:59 pm )