This petition is filed to set aside the proceedings in H.S.No.239 of 2007 dated 13.10.2007 on the file of the 1st respondent.
2.The petitioner was working as Headmaster in Maranthi School, Kalaiyar Kovil Union. He has arrayed as accused in connection with Crime No.19 of 2005 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections
323, 341,
506(ii) and 379 of (NP) Act, Crime No.7 of 2006 for the alleged offence punishable under
Sections 341,323, 506(i) of I.P.C. and Crime No.234 of 2006 for the alleged offence punishable under
Sections 324 and
506(ii) of I.P.C. The petitioner has been released on bail and charge-sheets have been filed.
3.In a civil dispute between one Karuppiah and Chellam, the petitioner, who helped them to arrive amicable solution, was arrayed as accused No.1 in Crime No.19 of 2005 for the above said alleged offences. Further, the petitioner gave a complaint to the Revenue Authority in good faith against a sand smuggler and the said person gave false allegation against the petitioner and on that basis, a case in Crime No.7 of 2006 has been registered by the respondent police under Sections 323, 341 and 379(NP) Act. Further, the first respondent seems to have created a rowdy History Sheet on 13.10.2007 in H.S.No.239 of 2007 against the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has come before this Court by filing the present petition praying to set aside the History Sheet as it was illegal, unjust and arbitrary, which was issued with mala fide intention as no opportunity was given to him before passing such order and further the petitioner stated that the order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and the offences are not against the public to cause public disturbances.
4.The respondents have filed a counter stating that Crime No.19 of 2005 was filed on a complaint given by one Chellam on 21.01.2005 in which, it was stated that the petitioner along with one Karuppiah trespassed into the paddy field of Chellam and harvested the crops. When it was questioned by her, the petitioner had attacked the de-facto complainant and therefore, the said case has been registered under
Sections 341,323,506(ii) of I.P.C. It is further stated that Crime No.7 of 2006 was filed on a complaint given by one Chandrasekaran for the similar offences and Crime No.234 of 2006 was filed on a complaint given by one Kaleeswaran for the offence under
Sections 294(b),324,506(ii) of I.P.C.
5.Further, the respondent stated in the counter affidavit that the conduct and involvement of the petitioner are quite harmful to the public. It is further stated that the nature of the above three cases against the petitioner have created a circumstances to be cautious and to watch over the further conduct of the petitioner and the History Sheet was opened under the Police Standing Order 749 with the permission of the Superintendent of Police and it would be valid for a year and thereafter, it will be closed after the conduct of the person proves satisfactory.
6.The only point arise for consideration is whether any legality and reasonableness is there in opening a History Sheet against the petitioner.
7.The case of the petitioner is that he is working as a Headmaster in the said school and has not involved any offences against the public or to cause public disturbances. However, he would admit that there are three cases registered during the year 2005 and 2006 for similar offences and the major offence being 506(ii) of I.P.C. As stated earlier in Crime No.19 of 2005 has been registered on a complaint given by one Chellam, Crime No.7 of 2006 was registered on a complaint given by one Chandrasekaran and Crime No.234 of 2006 was registered on a complaint given by one Kaleeswaran. The first respondent would also substantiate for creating History Sheet for one more incident of sending a critical complaint against the Elementary Education Officer, Sivagangai, a widow women belonging to Scheduled Caste and putting her under threat.
8.According to the respondent, the History Sheet was created as contemplated under Police Standing Order 749 and it will be valid for a period of one year and it is only to watch the conduct of the person against whom the History Sheet has been filed and if the conduct proves satisfactory then it would be closed otherwise, it would be renewed for another year. As such, the History Sheet against the petitioner was opened on 13.10.2007 and ought to have been closed on 12.10.2008 or it should have been renewed.
9.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the cases were foisted against him with an ulterior motive and even assuming that the cases and complaints were given against the petitioner for the said offences, they are very similar in nature, which will not warrant for creation of a History Sheet for a reputed person like a Headmaster.
10.The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on an unreported judgment of this Court dated 15.09.2008 in W.P.No.2286 of 2005. Several writ petitions have been filed before this Court for cancellation of History Sheet and this Court while deciding the matter under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, came heavily on the arbitrary act of the police and had removed the names of the petitioners from the History Sheet maintained by the police.
11.Here, is a case of school Headmaster that an elementary school whose name was included in the History Sheet simply because three complaints were against him. The Police Standing Order 746 reads as follows: "PSO 746. Part-IV - History Sheets.
(1)Part V(Form No.III) shall contain the History Sheets of the persons resident permanently or temporarily in their station limits who are known or believed to be addicted to or to aid and abet the commission of crime, whether convicted or not, or who are believed to be habitual receivers."
12.The learned Single Judge in W.P.No.2286 of 2005 had observed as "10. Ordinarily the names of persons with previous criminal record alone are entered in the surveillance register. They must be proclaimed offenders, previous convicts, or persons who have already been placed on security for good behaviour. In addition, names of persons who are reasonably believed to be habitual offenders or receivers of stolen property whether they have been convicted or not may be entered. It is only in the case of this category of persons that there may be occasion for abuse of the power of the police officer to make entries in the surveillance register. But, here, the entry can only be made by the order of the Superintendent of Police who is prohibited from delegating his authority under Rule 23.5. Further it is necessary that the Superintendent of Police must entertain a reasonable belief that persons whose names are to be entered in Part II are habitual offenders of receivers of stolen property. While it may not be necessary to supply the grounds of belief to the persons whose names are entered in the surveillance register it may become necessary in some cases to satisfy the court when an entry is challenged that there are grounds to entertain such reasonable belief."
13.Following the said judgment, I am of the considered view that "opening of the History Sheets in the name of the petitioner is arbitrary, unreasonable and whimsical and it would amount to denial of right of citizens provided under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India to have the right of privacy". The cases are based on a complaint given by private individuals for specific offences under I.P.C., which will not warrant as a threat to public disturbances. As far as the open criticism of the petitioner regarding children's day celebration, which is an internal affairs of the department and the respondent cannot treat this as a basis for creating History Sheet.
14.For the reasons stated above, I am of theview that the order passed in H.S.No.239 of 2007 is unreasonable and liable to be set aside under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to meet ends of justice and abuse of process of law.
Hence, the petition is allowed.
nbj To
1.The Inspector of Police, Kalayalkovil Police Station, Sivagangai District.
in H.S.No.239 of 2007
2.The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District.
3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.