M SEENI NAINAR MOHAMED Vs. COMM OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed to direct the second respondent to remove the petitioner's name in the history sheet in H.S.No.392/1995 maintained by the third respondent by considering the petitioner's representation dated 17.10.2017.

(2.) Heard Mr.R.Alagumani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.Shanmugaselvam, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the State Deputy Secretary of Islamia Jananayaga Peravai in Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Party. He further submitted that totally nine cases have been filed against the petitioner and out of which, in four cases, the petitioner was acquitted; in one case, the petitioner was convicted and imposed a fine of Rs.150/- on 19.11.1997 for the offence u/s.324 of IPC; in one case, the petitioner was convicted for the offence u/s.147, 148 and 302 IPC and u/s.3 (2) r/w. 3 (1) of TADA R/W.109 IPC and Section 3 (4) of TADA, in which, the petitioner was convicted by the Trial Court. On appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court acquitted the petitioner on 27.04.2017. He further submitted that one FIR registered in Cr.No.627 of 1998 by the third respondent has withdrawn on 17.04.1998. In one case which was registered in Cr.No.1278 of 2010 by the third respondent u/s.109 Cr.P.C., the petitioner got bail. In one case which was registered in Cr.No.1396/2010 by the third respondent u/s. 147, 148 341, 324, and 307 of IPC, charge sheet was filed and the case was taken on file in P.R.C.No.31 of 2011 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai and the same was quashed by this Court on 02.07.2014 as per the order passed in Crl.O.P.No.16952 of 2012. He further submitted that in the year 1995, the third respondent has opened a history sheet in H.S.No.392/1995 against the petitioner. He further submitted that subsequently in most of the cases, the petitioner was acquitted and recently no case has been registered against the petitioner and that being so, the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 17.10.2017 before the second respondent requesting him to remove his name from the history sheet. But so far, no order has been passed. He further submitted that because of the petitioner's name has been included in the history sheet, the petitioner is not able to go abroad and hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner has requested to direct the second respondent to remove the petitioner's name from the history sheet.