Judgment : 1. Petitioner seeks for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent to delete the name of the name of the Petitioner from the Criminal List on the file of the Fourth Respondent. 2. Case of the Petitioner is that he fell in love with one Kayalvizhi, who belongs to backward community (Maravar) and that there was strong objection from her family members regarding their love affair. The Petitioner is said to have married Kayalvizhi on 19.2.2003 and registered the same in the Sub Registrar Office, Thallakulam. According to the Petitioner, the marriage was not to the liking of the family of his wife- Kayalvizhi and at their instigation criminal cases were registered against the Petitioner. Though the criminal cases ended in acquittal, the respondents 4 and 5 have criminal list. Further case of the petitioner is that the made a complaint to respondents 1 to 3 take action on the erring police officials and requested them to remove his name from the criminal list and the Assistant Commissioner of Police promised to re move the Petitioners name from the criminal list, but later failed to remove his name there after and hence the Writ Petition. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that a person‘s name could be included in the criminal list only in case of habitual offender and not Petitioner, which had ended in acquittal. Drawing the attention of the Court to the complaint preferred by the petitioner before the State Human Rights Commission in S.H.R.C. Case No. 4090 of 2003 the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that in the said complaint the Sub Inspector of Police was directed to pay compensation to the Petitioner. It is contended that infuriated over the same, Respondents 4 and 5 have included the name of the Petitioner in the criminal list which amounts to violation of infringement of fundamental right of the Petitioner. 4. Learned Government Advocate has submitted that for preservation and protection of the society the police are opening and retaining history sheets and that such maintenance of history sheets are purely within the domain of the police. It is further submitted that as per the Police Standing Orders if the petitioner is aggrieved he ought to have filed an application before the Commissioner of Police for removal of his name. 5. It is further submitted that as per the Police Standing Orders if the petitioner is aggrieved he ought to have filed an application before the Commissioner of Police for removal of his name. 5. There were at least two cases against the Petitioner as under:- 6. For Proper appreciation of the contentious points raised we may usefully refer to Police Standing Orders. A glance of the police Standing Orders would show that opening and closing of history sheets/rowdy sheets is purely within the domain of the police P.S.O. 749 deals with the suspects and opening of history sheets. P.S.O. 749 reads thus:- “(1) The following persons shall be classed as suspects and history Sheets shall be opened for them under orders of the Superintendent or Divisional Officer, if so empowered by the Superintendent:- (a)Persons one convicted under any sections of the Indian Penal Code are considered to be likely to commit crime; (b)Persons not convicted, but believed to be addicted to crime. (2) The following persons may be classified a rowdies and Rowdy Sheets (From No 112 may be opened for them under the orders of the superintendent or Sub Divisional Officer:- (a) Person who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences in evolving a breach of peace. (b) Persons bound over under Sections 106 and 107 Criminal Procedure Code. (c) Persons who have been convicted under section 75 of the Madras City Police Act of Twice in two consecutive years under Section Clauses 12 of the Town Nuisance Act. (d) Persons who are illicit distillers and known purveyors of liquor.” 7. P.S.O. 748 deals with discontinuance of history sheets which reads as follows:- “(1) History Sheets shall be closed by the definite orders of an officer of and above the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police/ Deputy Superintendent of Police and shall be filed in the Station. The History Sheets of persons who have died shall be destroyed under orders of an officer or and above the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police/Deputy Superintendent of police. The Superintendent of Police may order of closure of a History Sheet at any time but a Divisional Officer may only do so on the expiry of the period named above. The History Sheets of persons who have died shall be destroyed under orders of an officer or and above the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police/Deputy Superintendent of police. The Superintendent of Police may order of closure of a History Sheet at any time but a Divisional Officer may only do so on the expiry of the period named above. (2) Where retention of a History Sheet is considered necessary 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 the extension in the first instance upto the end of the next December and further annual extensions from January to December. (3) The above orders shall apply to rowdy sheets also.” 8. Thus it is evident opening and retaining and closure of history sheet is purely within the domain of the police. If the petitions are filed seeking direction to removal of names from the rowdy list, the court has no mechanism to verify the correctness or other wise of the details which led the police to open the history sheet/rowdy sheet. History sheets are opened only for such persons who are likely to become habitual criminals or abettors of such criminals. The power is vested with the police under police regulations which is exercised by the police in the interest of society. 9. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the order passed by the State Human Rights Commission in S.H.R.C. Case No. 4090 of 2003 wherein the Sub Inspector of Police of Thallakulam police station was found guilty of human rights violation and was liable to pay compensation of Rs. 5000/- to the Petitioner. It is submitted that after the passing of the order by the State Human Rights Commission on 27.1.2004 a further case was registered against the Petitioner in crime No. 1390/2004 on 26. 7. 2004 under Section 392 read with 397 I.P.C. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the said case was foisted against the Petitioner and the Petitioner was rightly acquitted by the Sessions Court in S.C. No. 237 of 2005. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has further submitted that the Petitioner is a law abiding citizen and cases have been foisted against the Petitioner only on account of his marriage with Kayalvizhi, which is an intercaste marriage. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has further submitted that the Petitioner is a law abiding citizen and cases have been foisted against the Petitioner only on account of his marriage with Kayalvizhi, which is an intercaste marriage. The merits of this contention cannot be gone into since S.C. No. 237 of 2005 ended in acquittal giving benefit of doubt to the Petitioner. If really the Petitioner is aggrieved, as per Police Standing Orders, he ought to have approached the Third Respondent-Commissioner of Police seeking removal of his name from the criminal list. 10. Contending that inclusion of name of the Petitioner in the criminal list would amount to infringement of fundamental right, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Kharak Singh v. State of U. P ., AIR 1963 SC 1295 . The case relied upon by the Petitioner was a case which arose where the police kept watch over movement of suspect. In that factual aspect the Supreme Court has held that the act of surveillance is certainly a restriction on the freedom and such surveillance would amount to infringement of personal liberty in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Case in hand stands entirely on different footing. Absolutely there is no surveillance nor is there any infringement of the fundamental right of the Petitioner affecting his life and liberty. 11. The opening and retention of the criminal list is purely within the domain of the police. Under P.S.O. 748 the history sheet/ criminal list shall be closed by the definite orders of an officer above the rank of Assistant Superintendent of police/Deputy Superintendent of police. If the Petitioner is aggrieved over the opening of the history sheet/criminal list, the Petitioner ought to have approached the third Respondent namely, the Commissioner of Police seeking removal of his name from the criminal list. When a special procedure is contemplated under Police Standing Orders, the Petitioner is not entitled to maintain the Writ Petition seeking direction for removal of his name the criminals list. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for. The relief sought for. The Writ Petitioner is dismissed. No costs.