W.P.Crl.(MD)No.3938 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17.07.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI W.P.Crl.(MD)No.3938 of 2026 Manikandan Rajalingam ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by, The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District. Nagercoil 629 001 2. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by The Inspector of Police, Suchindram Police Station, Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider and consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated.02.07.2026 seeking compliance with the order dated.10.09.2024 passed by this Honble court in W.P. (MD).No.21418 of 2024 and consequently remove the petitioner's name from History Sheet No.304 of 2014, if there are no legally sustainable grounds for its continuance, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Crl.(MD)No.3938 of 2026 For Petitioner : Mr.Ananth For Respondents : Mr.D.Rajaboopathy Government Advocate (Crl.side) ORDER This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 02.07.2026 and consequently direct the respondent to remove the petitioner's name from History Sheet No. 304 of 2014. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has submitted a representation to remove his name from the History Sheet for the second time on 02.07.2026. Earlier he had made a similar representation on 08.08.2024 and thereafter he had also filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.21418 of 2024 and this Court had passed an order on 10.09.2024 to consider his representation. However, so far, the same was not considered. Hence, the petitioner had made a fresh representation on 02.07.2026 and sought indulgence of this court. 3. Mr.D.Rajaboopathy, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents, submitted that a case in L.I.R. No.13 of 2026, dated 10.02.2026, was registered under Section 110(e) of the Cr.P.C. and the same was forwarded to the jurisdictional Revenue Divisional Officer. Pursuant 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Crl.(MD)No.3938 of 2026 thereto, in M.C. No.189 of 2026, dated 27.03.2026, the petitioner executed a bond before the jurisdictional Revenue Divisional Officer for maintaining good behaviour. 4. The issue involved in this writ petition has already been dealt with by the Madurai Bench of this Court and detailed order has been passed in W.P. (MD)No.19651 of 2017 on 26.09.2018. On the basis of the above said Order, the Director General Of Police, Chennai issued a circular in Rc.No. 66569/Crime 3(2)/2019 dated 24.04.2019, which reads as follows :- “7. From the above judgments the following principles emerge insofar as history sheeters are concerned: a. In order to facilitate the study of crime and criminals, the Police Standing Orders provides a mechanism, whereby every Police Station shall maintain a crime history, which shall be a confidential record. In this record all cases of crime that are mentioned in PSO No.742, which provides various classes of crime, shall be entered and even an attempt to commit those offences, are entered in the records maintained in the Police Station. b. These crime records maintained by the Various Police Stations shall be reviewed every year by the Inspector of Police of the concerned Police Station. On such review, the Inspector of Police has to furnish a concise appreciation of the year's crime for the benefit of the Superior Officers and 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Crl.(MD)No.3938 of 2026 also to make suggestions in order to improve the quality of crime control. The review undertaken by the Inspector of Police is not merely a catalogue of the crime in the year. It should reflect the valuable suggestions in order to prevent such crimes in future and to provide ways and means of handling serious offences in an effective manner. c. History Sheet can be opened by the concerned Police Station under two circumstances. The first circumstance is provided under PSO No.746, which states that the history sheet can be opened against a person who is a resident (permanently or temporarily) within the station limit, who is known or believed to be addicted to commission of crime, whether convicted or not. Here the thrust is on the habituality or the propensity to commit a crime by a person, which is sought to be monitored by opening a history sheet. d. The second category of persons against whom history sheet can be opened are the persons, who are convicted for various offences that has been listed in PSO No.747, wherein opening of the history sheet is automatic. e. In the first category of opening history sheet, month wise scrutiny or a close watch on the person concerned is contemplated. Here also there is sub-categorization as, close watch bad characters and non-close watch bad characters. In the former, the entry shall be made month wise and in the later, the entry shall be made once in a quarter. What is entered is normally anything of interest in respect of the bad character, which goes to the notice of the Police. These records must be checked and brought up to date once in a year. Here the main thrust is on "Current Doings". 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Crl.(MD)No.3938 of 2026 f. In the second category of opening history sheet, a mere act of conviction under the offences listed in PSO No.747 is enough. The name of the persons, who have been convicted for those offences can be retained for a period of two years after their release from jail. g. PSO No.748, is the most important provision, which deals with discontinuance of history sheet. This provision is common to both the categories falling under PSO Nos.746 and 747. As per PSO No.748, the Superintendent of Police may order a closure of a history sheet at any time. But, the Divisional Officer can order closure of history sheet only after the expiry of the period stipulated in PSO No.747. h. As per PSO 748, where retention of the history sheet is considered to be necessary, even 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 extension for the first instance up to the end of next December. For further annual extension from January to December, separate orders must be passed every time by an Officer of and above the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police / Deputy Superintendent of Police. This provision is made applicable even for rowdy sheeters. i. For the purpose of passing such orders, there must be valid materials available on record and it cannot be passed on the whims and fancies of the Police Officers. Therefore, the authority empowered to extend 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Crl.(MD)No.3938 of 2026 the period of retention of the names of the persons in the history sheet, should record his reasons based on both objective and subjective instructions. j. Branding a person as a history sheeted rowdy, taints the name and image of the person. It is true that the entire purpose of maintaining a history sheet is to ensure public peace. However, it should be balanced with the fundamental right guaranteed to every citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, a fair and reasonable decision, based on the materials, with sufficient reasons, becomes sine qua non to retain the name of a person as a history sheeter beyond the period stipulated in the Police Standing Orders. k. This Court has time and again brought the above principle to the notice of the Higher Police Officials and in one of the judgments in Manivanan Vs. State represented by The District Collector, Coimbatore District and Others, reported in (2013) 7 MLJ 501, this Court felt that there is lack of understanding on the part of the Police in maintaining history sheet and therefore, directed the Director General of Police to issue necessary instructions / guidelines / circulars with regard to the manner in which it has to be maintained and the manner in which the orders will have to be passed for extension of the period to continue a person as a history sheeter.” 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Crl.(MD)No.3938 of 2026 5. Considering the rival submissions made on either side, the respondent police is directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 02.07.2026 and dealt with in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. With the said observations, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. 17.07.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No gvn To:- 1. The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District. Nagercoil 629 001 2. The Inspector of Police, Suchindram Police Station, Kanyakumari District. 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Crl.(MD)No.3938 of 2026 L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J. gvn Order made in W.P.Crl.(MD)No.3938 of 2026 Dated 17.07.2026 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis