Judgment :- Mr.I.Subramanian, learned Public Prosecutor, takes notice for the respondents. 2. Writ Petition praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to issue suitable directions to respondents 3 and 4 to remove the name of the petitioner relating to History Sheet No.477 of 2002 displayed on the file of the Karaikudi North Police Station, Sivaganga District. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would submit that he is the treasurer of Moovendar Munnetra Kazaham and is running a pawn broker shop in the name and style of Raja Sethupathi Pawn Shop at Karaikudi; that one Sudharsan lodged a complaint before the third respondent alleging that the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.2.5 lakhs and failed to repay the amount when the same was asked to be repaid by the said Sudharsan, further alleging that he threatened him with dire consequences, if he asked for the repayment of the money; that there were money transactions between the petitioner and the said Sudharsan in the year 1977 and the same had come to an end in the year 1999; that after 1999, there were no transactions between himself and the said Sudharsan; that in the year 2000, there was a split in the Moovendar Munnetra Kazaham political party into two factions, one under the leadership of Dr.Sehuraman and the other other under the leadership of Sridhar Vandaiyar; that he had participated in the agitations sponsored by his political party, Moovendar Munnetra Kazaham, for which, two separate cases were registered against him in Sivaganga Sub-Division; that the said Sudharsan is the friend of one Arivazhagan, who is in the faction led by Dr.Sethuraman and at the instigation of the said Arivahagan, the above false complaint had been lodged against him by the said Sudharsan before the third respondent. 4. 4. It is further submitted that based on the complaint of the said Sudharsan, on 29.4.2002, the petitioner was taken to the police station and he was forced to execute a compromise note in front of the third respondent, in which, he had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh on or before 2.5.2002 and a sum of Rs.1.25 lakhs on 10.5.2002; that the third respondent freed him only after obtaining a sum of Rs.25,000/=; that the petitioner's contention is that if any congnizable offence is made out against him in the complaint lodged by the said Sudharsan, the third respondent had to register a case and conduct an investigation to unearth his complicity in the said crime; that the third respondent is not the authority to decide whether he was liable to pay the above said amount or not. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner had sent telegrams to various authorities including the first and second respondents praying for action against the third respondent; that he also met the Personal Assistant of the second respondent, who directed him to lodge a complaint before the Inspector General of Police (L & O), Chennai and he did the same; that when the third respondent came to know about the steps taken by the petitioner against him, with an ulterior motive to take revenge on him, he made him as History Sheeted rowdy as per the provision contemplated under Order 749 of the Madras Police Standing Orders; that extracting the relevant provisions of the above said Section, the petitioner would submit that his name is displayed in the board kept outside the Karaikudi North Police Station, Sivaganga District, as a History Sheeted Rowdy No.477/2002. On such averments, the petitioner would pray to allow the writ petition as prayed for. 6. On such averments, the petitioner would pray to allow the writ petition as prayed for. 6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the third respondent, it would be submitted that the history sheet in respect of the petitioner was opened in accordance with the provisions of Order 749 of of Tamil Nadu Police Standing Orders in a bona fide and justifiable manner; that the petitioner is concerned with the case registered in Karaikudi North Police Station Cr.No.431/95 for an offence punishable under Section 107 Cr.P.C. in connection with which, proceedings were initiated before the R.D.O., Devakottai, in M.C. No.9/96, the petitioner being arrayed as a member of 'B' party and in spite of summons, the petitioner did not appear before the said authority. 7. The third respondent would further submit that history sheet could be validly opened as contemplated under Order 749 (2) (a) of the Police Standing Orders; that the petitioner is also concerned with another case registered in Singampuneri P.S. Crime No.276/92 under Section 420 IPC, which is now pending trial in C.C. No.33/96 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Tirupathur, the facts of the case being that the petitioner had indulged in an offence of doubling the currencies and cheated the complainant therein and this is yet another ground relevant for opening the history sheet against the petitioner; that the petitioner is also involved in yet another case registered in Sivaganga Taluk P.S. Crime No.9/99 for an offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 307 and 436 IPC r/w. Section 3 of the TNPPD Act and the gist of the case being that the petitioner, joining hands with his associates being the members of unlawful assembly, in furtherance of the common object of assault, resulting in the victim being seriously injured and burning the Government bus worth Rs.5,50,000/= and destroying it completely; that this case is also serving the ground for opening the history sheet against the petitioner. 8. The counter affidavit would further state that in spite of having indulged in such heinous crimes, the petitioner had made false averments, thus excepting the petition enquiry relating to the case alleged by Sudharsan, there was no other case registered in Karaikudi Sub Division, thus becoming dis-entitled seeking the discretionary relief from this Court; that the suppression of these material facts are deliberate on the part of the petitioner. The third respondent would deny the allegation that the petitioner was coerced by him and it would transpire that both the petitioner and the complainant Sudharsan in that particular case have mutually settled their case relating to their monetary transaction, pursuant to a payment of a sum of Rs.25,000/= resulting in the case being registered under that particular complaint. The respondents reiterating that the history sheet in the case of the petitioner was opened only on credible materials in a bona fide manner, without any grievance or animosity against the petitioner, would ultimately pray to dismiss the writ petition. 9. During arguments, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would only reiterate the factual position of the case and would submit that without proper ingredients or evidence, based on a false case registered by a person, who is ill-disposed of with the petitioner, the respondents have illegally resorted to open a history sheet for the petitioner as rowdy and displayed the same in the notice board of the police station much to the disgrace and disregard, in spite of the petitioner being a law abiding citizen and leader of a political party. The learned senior counsel would further lament that the action of the respondents is sure to bring ill-repute to the petitioner, thus lowering his dignity and status in the society as well and would seek to allow the writ petition to the prayer extracted supra. 10. On the contrary, the learned Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras, appearing on behalf of the respondents would cite a judgment delivered in Dhanji Ram VS. Supdt. Of Police Delhi reported in AIR 1966 SC 1766 , regarding entry of names in history sheets and police registers, wherein it is concluded that "reasonable belief of a police officer about a person being habitually addicted to crime, etc. is enough. -- Grounds for arriving at this belief need not be stated in the order. For the efficient discharge of their duties, the police officers are empowered by the police rules to open the history sheets of suspects and to enter their names in the police register." 11. The learned Public Prosecutor would cite two more judgments reported in AIR 1992 All. 198 (NISAR AHMAD vs. V ADDL. DISRICT JUDGE, AZAMGARH) and AIR 1970 Punjab & Haryana 379 (JAI SINGH vs. STATE OF HARYANA). The learned Public Prosecutor would cite two more judgments reported in AIR 1992 All. 198 (NISAR AHMAD vs. V ADDL. DISRICT JUDGE, AZAMGARH) and AIR 1970 Punjab & Haryana 379 (JAI SINGH vs. STATE OF HARYANA). So far as the first judgment cited above is concerned, it is held therein: "However, even after holding that the petitioners' writ petition is liable to be thrown out and petitions are not entitled to be heard on merits of the case on ground of concealment of material facts and approaching this Court not with clean hands, I proceed to decide the legal questions formulated in the present case." So far as the second judgment cited above is concerned, a Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, while dealing with the question of suppression of facts with the deceitful mind by the petitioner, would refer to the observation of Viscount Reading C.J., in Rex VS. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners reported in (1917) 1 KB 486, which is relevant for extraction hereunder: "Where an ex parte application has been made to this Court for a rule nisi or other process, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the affidavit in support of the application was not candid and did not fairly state the facts, but stated them in such a way as to mislead the Court as to the true facts, the Court ought, for its own protection and to prevent an abuse of its process, to refuse to proceed any further with the examination of the merits. This is a power inherent in the Court, but one which should only be used in cases which bring conviction to the mind of the Court that it has been deceived." "On this consideration also the petitioners are not entitled to the exercise of the discretion of this Court in their favour so far as Article 226 of the Constitution is concerned." 12. On facts, the learned Public Prosecutor, citing the relevant provision of law from the Tamil Nadu Police Standing Orders, particularly Order 749 and its requirements, would exhort that the instances cited on the part of the third respondent in his counter are not controverted by the other side and deserve more evidence than what is required for opening a rowdy history sheet for the petitioner by being a habitual offender of heinous crimes and misdemeanour , and therefore, absolutely there is no need or necessity on the part of this court to interfere with the decision of the respondents in branding the petitioner as a history sheeted rowdy and would seek to dismiss the writ petition with costs. 13. In consideration of the facts and circumstances encircling the above writ petition as extracted supra, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor contra, what comes to be known is that the petitioner, taking serious objection of the respondents opening the history sheet for the petitioner to depict him as a rowdy on ground that he has never been either in the habit of indulging in criminal activities, thus fulfilling the requirements of Order 749 of the Tamil Nadu Police Standing orders, since to the knowledge of the petitioner, there has been a false complaint registered in the Karaikudi North Police Station by one Sudharsan, based on which, the third respondent has brought the name of the petitioner as a history sheeted rowdy, without any valid reason or justification, and therefore, would pray to issue direction to respondents 1 and 2 to issue suitable directions to respondents 3 and 4 to remove the name of the petitioner, relating to the history sheet No.477/2002 displayed on the file of the Karaikudi North Police Station, Sivaganga District. 14. 14. Need less to mention that the third respondent, in his counter affidavit has brought forth three instances, in which, criminal cases have been registered and are pending trial, the first one in Karaikudi North P.S. in Crime No.431/95 under Section 107 Cr.P.C. pending before the R.D.O., Devakottai in M.C. No.9/96, in which the petitioner is figuring as the member of the 'B' party, the second one in Singampuneri P.S. Crime No.276/92 under Section 420 IPC pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Thirupathur and the third one in Sivaganga Taluk P.S. Crime No.9/99 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 307 and 436 IPC r/w. Section 3 of the TNPPD Act and in all the above three cases, the petitioner has been cited as an accused. No mention need be necessary that from out of these, the later two cases are heinous crimes though the first one could be taken in a lighter vein, but they are relevant for consideration so far as Order 749 of Tamil Nadu Police Standing Orders is concerned. 15. On the part of the respondents, there is no denying of these facts of the cases having been registered against the petitioner. But the petitioner, only citing the complaint lodged by one Sudharsan against him in the Karaikudi North P.S. and as though no other case has been registered against him so as to brand him as a history sheeted rowdy, has come forward to file the above writ petition seeking the relief extracted supra. 16. The instances cited for the petitioner having indulged in many criminal cases are more than sufficient for opening the history sheet against him and branding him as a history sheeted rowdy and in these circumstances, the interference of this Court sought to be made into such acts of the respondents is neither necessary nor warranted in the circumstances of the case, resulting in the above writ petition to become liable only to be dismissed. In result, the above writ petition does not merit acceptance and the same is dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs. Consequently, WPMP No.28645 of 2002 is also dismissed.