AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.D. Dinakaran, J.—In these writ petitions, the petitioners seek a writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the fourth respondent
in connection with the History Sheet Nos.436, 437, 438, 440, 441, 442, 439, 443, 444, 446, 445, 447, 448, and 449, opened on 7.5.2002 and
quash the same.
The impugned proceeding dated 7.5.2002 that is challenged in these writ petitions reads as follows:
From:
The Inspector
E1, Lalgudi Police Station
Lalgudi.
To:
The Superintendent of Police
Lalgudi Circle, Lalgudi.
Sir,
Sub: Rowdy History Sheet opening in the marginally noted person-Refreshment.
Ref:(1) Lalgudi Ps Cr.No.1174/01 U/s.147, 148, 323, 506 (11) IPC Cr.No.175/02 U/s.341, 324, 506(11) IPC
(2) As per the order of the DGP Chennai
RC.No.59977 Crime -3(1)/02, dated 22.3.2002.
The marginally noted accused in concerned in the cited above case, Ref.No.1 and the case is pending trial in the court of JM, Lalgudi. The
activities of said accused may be watched under History Sheet. Hence, I request that kindly permit to open History Sheet on him.
Order:Yours Sincerely
Open History Sheet
IlangovanRajendran
D.S.P.-Lalgudi Inspector of Police
Date: 07.05.2002
Lalgudi
History No:
436M.Kulothunga Cholan S/o.S.Marimuthu
437M.Karikala Cholan S/o.S.Marimuthu
438M.Sibi Chakaravarthi S/o.S.Marimuthu
439M.Raja Raja Cholan S/o.S.Marimuthu
440K.Senthil Kumar S/o.Kandasamy
441R.Thunaiyarasan S/o.M.Rengaraj
442K.Sankar S/o.M.Karuppaiyan
443Nappolian S/o.S.Manickam
444M.Mummudi Cholan S/o.S.Manickam
10.445Puhalandi @ Vijayanandh S/o.Kulandhaivel
446M.Panchali W/o.S.Marimuthu
447T.Devi W/o.R.Thunaiyarasan
13.448P.Banumathi W/o.Panaiyadian
14.449K.Kalaiyarasan S/o.Kalaiselvan
A plain reading of the impugned proceedings dated 7.5.2002 refers to two crimes, viz.,(i) Cr.No.1174/01 for the offences punishable under
Sections 147, 148, 323, 506(11) of Indian Penal Code, and (ii) Cr.No.175/02 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 506(11)
Indian Penal Code, and also the proceedings of the Director General of Police dated 22.3.2002.
Even though the allegations mentioned in the above crimes constitute grave offences referred to above, Mr. R. Regupathy, learned counsel for
the petitioners seriously contends that those allegations are false, incorrect and mala fide, and therefore, seeks a writ of certiorari as prayed for
invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Gobind Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and
Another, , contending that the impugned Rowdy History Sheets carrying the names of the petitioners offends Article 21 of the Constitution of India
in as much as their privacy of life and liberty protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are vitiated.
Mr. D. Krishnakumar, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents.
I have given careful consideration to the submissions of both sides.
The decision in Gobind Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, as what
was challenged in the said case is that the name of the aggrieved party was continuously maintained in the Rowdy History Sheet without any
application of mind by the respondent/Police with regard to his subsequent conduct.
On the other hand, it is not in dispute that the impugned Rowdy History Sheets refer to the recent occurrence with regard to which investigation
is still pending before respondents 3 and 4, for which the petitioners allege mala fide against respondents 3 and 4, and the same was brought to the
notice of the first respondent by their representation dated 11.3.2002. In my considered opinion, the first respondent is under a statutory obligation
to go into the said representation dated 11.3.2002 and to take appropriate decision in the matter exercising the power conferred u/s 154(3) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure and if necessary to transfer the investigation to some other Officer, if the grievance of the petitioners in this regard is
found true.
Hence, supported with the decision of the Apex Court in CHAMAN LAL Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS reported in 1992 SUPP (2)
SCC 84, wherein the Apex Court confirming the orders of the High Court refusing to quash the History sheet observed that the aggrieved party
may approach the superior authority seeking their intervention in such matters, who may consider such representation according to law and pass
appropriate orders, I am obliged to direct the first respondent herein to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 11.3.2002, referred to
above, independently and pass appropriate orders in the matter expeditiously, in any event within sixty days from the date of receipt of copy of this
order. If the petitioners are still aggrieved, the petitioners are at liberty to workout their further remedies under the provisions of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P.Nos.57785 to 57798 and 57853 to 57866 of 2002 are closed.