Surya vs State Rep by the Inspector

Court
Madras High Court

WP Crl.(MD) No. 5757 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 26-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN
THILAKAVADI
WP Crl.(MD) No. 5757 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011349952026}
Surya
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. State Rep by
The Superintendent of Police,
o/o.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai
2. State rep by the Inspector of Police,
Chathirapatti Police Station, Madurai District.
3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
rd
Oomachikulam, Madurai District. (3 Respondent
is suo motu impleaded by this Court by the order
dated 26.10.2026)
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ or
direction in the nature of Writ directing the Respondent No.2 to remove
the Petitioner's name from the history sheet in H.S.No.6 of 2018
maintained by him by considering the petitioner's representation dated
05.08.2026.
For Petitioner(s): M/s Naresh Prabu A
For Respondent(s): Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi
Additional Public Prosecutor
__________
Page  1  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:32:21 pm )

WP Crl.(MD) No. 5757 of 2026
ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the Respondent
No.2 to remove the Petitioner's name from the history sheet in H.S.No.6
of 2018 maintained by him by considering the petitioner's representation
dated 05.08.2026.
2. The petitioner has sent a representation on 05.08.2026 to the
respondents seeking to remove his name from the History Sheet No.6 of
2018. 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
__________
Page  2  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:32:21 pm )

WP Crl.(MD) No. 5757 of 2026
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
__________
Page  3  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:32:21 pm )

WP Crl.(MD) No. 5757 of 2026
convicted for various offences that has been listed in PSO
No.747, wherein opening of the 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
__________
Page  4  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:32:21 pm )

WP Crl.(MD) No. 5757 of 2026
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.
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
__________
Page  5  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:32:21 pm )

WP Crl.(MD) No. 5757 of 2026
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
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. At this juncture, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
submitted that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Oomachikulam,
Madurai District is the competent authority to consider the representation
of the petitioner. But he is not a party to this writ petition. In view of the
submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Oomachikulam, Madurai District is
suo motu impleaded as third respondent in this case.
__________
Page  6  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:32:21 pm )

WP Crl.(MD) No. 5757 of 2026
6. 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 05.08.2026 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.
7. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
26-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
TM
rd
Note: 3 respondent is suo motu impleaded in this case. Registry is
directed to carry out necessary amendments in this regard.
To
1. The Superintendent of Police,
o/o.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai
2. The Inspector of Police,
Chathirapatti Police Station, Madurai District.
3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Oomachikulam, Madurai 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: 30/10/2026 03:32:21 pm )

WP Crl.(MD) No. 5757 of 2026
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.
TM
WP Crl.(MD) No. 5757 of 2026
26-10-2026

__________
Page  8  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:32:21 pm )