Suriyaprakash vs The State of Tamilnadu

Court
Madras High Court

WP Crl.(MD) No. 6038 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. 6038 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011562482026}
Suriyaprakash ..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State of Tamilnadu
The Superintendent of Police,
Officer of Superintendent of Police,
Madurai City, Madurai
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Thilagari Thidal Saragam,
Madurai
3. The Inspector of Police,
Karimedu (Law and Order) Police Station,
Madurai District ..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
rd
India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3 respondent to
remove the petitioner's name from the history sheet rowdy list
rd
H.S.No.12/2021 displayed in the Notice Board by the 3 respondent
police station on the basis of the petitioner’s representation dated
15.09.2026.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.T.Kishore Karthik
For Respondent(s) : Mr.D.Rajaboopathy
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
__________
Page  1  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:24:09 pm )

WP Crl.(MD) No. 6038 of 2026
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the third
respondent to remove the petitioner's name from the history sheet rowdy
list bearing H.S. No. 12/2021, displayed on the notice board of the third
respondent police station, pursuant to the petitioner's representation dated
15.09.2026.
2. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 15.09.2026 to the
first respondent, seeking the removal of his name from the history sheet
rowdy list bearing H.S. No. 12/2021, displayed on the notice board of the
third respondent police station. 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 :
“7. From the above judgments the following principles
emerge insofar as history sheeters are concerned:
__________
Page  2  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:24:09 pm )

WP Crl.(MD) No. 6038 of 2026
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.
__________
Page  3  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:24:09 pm )

WP Crl.(MD) No. 6038 of 2026
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.
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
__________
Page  4  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:24:09 pm )

WP Crl.(MD) No. 6038 of 2026
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 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
__________
Page  5  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:24:09 pm )

WP Crl.(MD) No. 6038 of 2026
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. In terms of the above circular passed by the Director General of
Police, Chennai, this Court directs the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the
petitioner’s representation dated 15.09.2026 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
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
sji
__________
Page  6  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:24:09 pm )

WP Crl.(MD) No. 6038 of 2026
To
1. The Superintendent of Police
Officer of Superintendent of Police
Madurai City, Madurai
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Thilagari Thidal Saragam
Madurai
3. The Inspector of Police
Karimedu (Law and Order) Police Station, 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: 13/11/2026 06:24:09 pm )

WP Crl.(MD) No. 6038 of 2026
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.
sji
WP Crl.(MD) No. 6038 of 2026
05-11-2026
__________
Page  8  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:24:09 pm )