High CourtsSingle Bench(2010) 11 MAD CK 0090

V. Balamurugan vs The District Collector, The Superintendent of Police, The Deputy Superintendent of Police and The Inspector of Police

Madras High Court · Decided on 23 November 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
M. Jaichandren, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (MD) No. 6215 of 2009

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

16 paragraphs · 348 words

M. Jaichandren, J.—Heard Mr. G. Marimuthu, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, as well as Mr. K.M. Vijaya

Kumar, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Respondents.

2.

The main contention of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner is that, in spite of the fact that there is no case pending against

the Petitioner, as on date, the name of the Petitioner is found in the History Sheet, maintained by the fourth Respondent.

3.

Paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the fourth Respondent reads as follows:

4.

His faced cases were Seithur Police Station Cr. No. 307/2004 u/s 147, 148, 341, 353 IPC r/w. 3 of PPD Act and Cr. No. 308/2004 u/s 147,

148 r/w 3 of PPD Act and Cr. No. 321/2004 u/s 189, 292(A) and 509 IPC. It is true that all the cases ended in acquittal. It is also true first under

NDPS Act. FIR was made against him in Seithur PS Cr.319/2006 u/s 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(A) NDPS Act and later further action was dropped in

that case. It is also true he had made representation to Chief Minister Cell. But as per police standing order 7 & 8 for removal of anybody name

from history sheet/Rowdy sheet, concern person must move either Commissioner of Police in cities or Superintendent of Police in districts. But so

far it seems, the Petitioner has not moved any petition to Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District.

4.

In view of the averments made in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the fourth Respondent, the Petitioner is permitted to

make a representation to the second Respondent, with regard to the relief sought for by the Petitioner, in the present writ petition, within a period

of fifteen days from today, and on such representation being submitted by the Petitioner, the second Respondent is directed to consider the same

and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of four weeks thereafter.

5.

The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs.