Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 3080 (MAD)

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v. CHANDRABOSE

2018-09-19

PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, T.KRISHNAVALLI

body2018
JUDGMENT PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J. 1. The appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge dated 31.08.2015 passed in W.P(MD)No.14740 of 2015. 2. The said writ petition was filed for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first appellant in C.No.09/Memo/AC-ANR/L&O/MC/15, dated 03.07.2015 and quash the same and consequently to direct the first appellant to close the history sheet. 3. The respondent aggrieved by the history sheet opened against him on 11.03.2011 has filed the above writ petition to remove his name from the history sheet. 4. Admittedly, there were four cases filed against him and they all had ended in acquittal. In one of the cases which has been registered in Crime No.578 of 2014 an alteration report was filed and the name of the respondent was deleted. It is stated that the respondent/writ petitioner had mended his ways and later, he had also joined law college in Trichy and he said to have graduated. However, he is unable to enroll himself as an Advocate in view of the history sheet opened in his name. The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu refused to entertain the application of the respondent for enrollment based on the criminal antecedents before enrolment. According to the respondent, even after the cases involving him were closed, the appellants seemed to be maintained the history sheet against him. It is further stated that as on date, there are no cases against the respondent. 5. Considering the plight of the respondent/writ petitioner, this Court had allowed the writ petition directing the first respondent to close the history opened against him. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ appeal has been filed. 6. The second appellant has also filed a status report. It is stated that while quashing the history sheet opened against the respondent, in paragraph 10 of the order, the undertaking given by the respondent was recorded that he will not involve in any other crime in future and he will be a role model to others. In the report dated 21.08.2008 filed by the second appellant, it is stated that a case in Crime No.1492 of 2016 has been registered for the offence under Sections 341, 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) IPC wherein the respondent was arrayed as A-2. In the report dated 21.08.2008 filed by the second appellant, it is stated that a case in Crime No.1492 of 2016 has been registered for the offence under Sections 341, 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) IPC wherein the respondent was arrayed as A-2. The said complaint was preferred by one Kannan who has stated that the respondent had stabbed him with knife on his right shoulder. The accused also seemed to have obtained anticipatory bail on 21.11.2016 from the Principal Sessions Judge, (FAC) Madurai. On completion of investigation, cognizance was taken in C.C.No.17 of 2017 and the same is pending trial before the Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai. 7. It is further stated that in yet another case was registered in Crime No.1493 of 2016 for the offence under Sections 341, 294(b), 307 and 506(ii) IPC wherein the respondent was arrayed as A-1 but the accused was acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C on 19.07.2017. It is further stated that the respondent even being a student of law, has criminal record involving himself in several criminal cases and hence, it was opposed by the learned Government Pleader that the order removing the name of the respondent from the history sheet should be set aside. 8. Since the crimes in which the respondent was involved are not heinous, he was acquitted ultimately. Even the learned single Judge had recorded the undertaking that he would not involve in any crime in future and he would enroll himself as an Advocate. The learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition only on the sympathetic ground that erring human should be given an opportunity to reform his attitude. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent vouched for the conduct of the respondent and prayed that his name may be removed from the history sheet. 10. In the light of the above, this Court had directed the respondent to file an affidavit of undertaking before this Court. Pursuant to the same, the respondent has filed an undertaking affidavit and stated as follows:- "2. I submit that I am hailing from poor family, my father is a auto driver by profession. The 2nd Appellant Police have opened a history sheet in my name while I was studying law. I challenged the same before this Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.14740 of 2015 and this Hon'ble High Court allowed the writ petition. Subsequent to that I enrolled myself as an Advocate. The 2nd Appellant Police have opened a history sheet in my name while I was studying law. I challenged the same before this Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.14740 of 2015 and this Hon'ble High Court allowed the writ petition. Subsequent to that I enrolled myself as an Advocate. The Appellate filed the above writ appeal challenging the order passed in W.P.No.14740 of 2015. Pending appeal two more cases came to be registered as against me. One ended in acquittal and in another, trial is pending. 3. I submit that after enrolling myself as an Advocate, I have mended my ways and practising before this Hon'ble High Court regularly. I changed my locality and keeping myself away from the trouble mongers. I also unconditionally undertake before this Hon'ble Court that I will not indulge in any criminal activities or any community activities and I will be away from all sorts of troubles. I also undertake that if I fail in my above undertaking, the Appellate police can take any stringent action upon me and I will be abide by the same. Further if I fail in the above undertaking I may also be subjected to disciplinary proceeding by the Tamil Nadu Bar Council". 11. Admitted fact that till date, the respondent has not been convicted in any of the cases. It is also not their case that he is a habitual offender to open a history sheet. 12. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and considering the undertaking given by the respondent, we are of the view that the respondent may be given an opportunity to mend his ways and choose a moral path and be a responsible citizen. However, it is made clear that in the event, the respondent indulges himself in any of the crimes irrespective of the nature of crime, he cannot be pardoned and the same would be viewed very seriously. With the above warning, the appeal preferred by the State is dismissed confirming the order passed by the learned single Judge. The first respondent is directed to close the history sheet opened against the respondent, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, M.P(MD)No.1 of 2015 is closed.