Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2979 (MAD)

Kesavakumar v. Commissioner of Police

2015-09-04

R.MALA

body2015
ORDER : The petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition seeking for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to remove his name in the list of History Sheet, on the file of the second respondent herein, pursuant to the representation sent to the first respondent herein dated 11.05.2015. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was arrayed as second accused in a case registered in Crime No.414 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) IPC and he was convicted and imposed with a fine of Rs.3,000/-for having committed the offence under Section 324 IPC, and after that, he was not involved in any other case, but, a false case has been registered in Crime No.360 of 2013 under Section 110 Cr.P.C., on 13.04.2013 and Crime No. 1515 of 2013 under Section 110 Cr.P.C., on 21.11.2013 and except the above two cases, nothing is pending against the petitioner. 4. Adding further, the learned counsel would submit that the petitioner is a coolie worker and he had to maintain his wife and children and because of that, he has stigma in the Society. Relying upon a decision of this Court in Selvaraj & others v. The Inspector of Police, Kaliakavilai Police Station & 2 others (2010 Writ L.R. 335), the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for a direction as stated above. 5. The second respondent filed a detailed counter, wherein, paragraph No.5 indicated the cases which are pending against the petitioner. Out of three cases, the first one has been ended in conviction and other two cases have been registered under Section 110 Cr.P.C., that too, in the year 2013 and after that, nothing is pending against him. 6. The learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that as per Tamil Nadu Police Standing Orders 749(b), persons, not convicted, but believed to be addicted to crime, shall be classed as suspects and history sheets shall be opened and, therefore, applying the said PSO to the case on hand, the petitioner may be classified as a rowdy and history sheet may be opened for him under the orders of the Superintendent or Sub-Divisional Officer, because of his continuous involvement in three cases. Therefore, the name of the petitioner has been rightly included in the history sheet. 7. Therefore, the name of the petitioner has been rightly included in the history sheet. 7. I have considered the rival submissions made by both sides and perused the materials available on record. 8. A perusal of the counter-affidavit would go to show that in 2011, the petitioner faced one criminal case and even though it was ended in conviction, in 2013, two cases have been registered for the offence under Section 110 Cr.P.C., and after that, nothing has been initiated against him. Now, the petitioner has also given an undertaking that he will not involve in any other crime in future and he will become a role model to others. 9. In view of the foregoing reasons and the decision relied upon by the petitioner in Selvaraj & others v. The Inspector of Police, Kaliakavilai Police Station & 2 others (2010 Writ L.R. 335) and in order to give opportunity to the petitioner to reform his old attitude, the respondents are directed to remove the name of the petitioner in the list of History Sheet maintained by the second respondent. 10. The Writ Petition stands ordered accordingly. No costs.