G.RAMAN ALIAS RAMACHANDRAN Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ petition is to an order passed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karur Town Sub-Division, Karur, retaining the petitioner in History Sheet till 31.12.2012.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that though he was involved in three crime numbers, two of them have ended in acquittal. He further submitted that though he submitted a representation, dated 30.12.2011, seeking for deletion of his name from the History Sheet, the Inspector of Police, Karur Town Police Station, Karur, has failed to respond. In the said circumstances, earlier he was constrained to file W.P.(MD).No.l282 of 2012 for a mandamus, directing the respondents therein to delete the name of the petitioner in the History Sheet No. 135/2009, maintained by the Inspector of Police, Karur Town Police Station, Karur District. The said writ petition came to be dismissed on the ground that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karur Town Sub-Division, Karur, the second respondent herein has decided to retain the petitioner in the History Sheet of Karur Town Police Station till 31.12.2012. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order, retaining him in History Sheet.

(3.) Assailing the correctness of the order passed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karur Town Sub-Division, Karur District and placing reliance on the decisions of this Court in W.P.(MD) Nos. 2286 of 2005 and batch, (S.Vani and the Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District and others), dated 15.09.2008, and in W.PNo.5677 of 2007, (L. Ravindran v. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai and others), dated 22.03.2012. Mr. Prasanna Vinodh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karur Town Sub-Division, Karur, has failed to consider that the petitioner was not involved in any serious crime affecting peace and public tranquillity, and that therefore, there is non-application of mind on the part of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karur Town Sub-Division. Karur, the second respondent herein, to the provisions warranting opening and retention of History Sheet. He further submitted that had the Inspector of Police, Karur Town Police Station, Karur, forwarded the details of acquittal in Crime Nos. 2773 of 2009 and 80 of 2010, which are favourable to the petitioner, then the second respondent would not have retained the petitioner in the History Sheet. Thus, he submitted that there is a failure on the part of the second respondent in taking into consideration, Police Standing Order 758 which reads that when any information favourable to an individual for whom a History Sheet is being kept is received, it shall be entered therein.