AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B V L N Chakravarthi, J
The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue an order, direction or Writ, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the History Sheet No. 64 of the year 2009, opened and continued against the petitioner in the 4th respondent Police Station with the orders of 3rd respondent Dt.02-01-2019 as violation of right to equality and right to freedom and liberty guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently order the respondents 3 and 4 to close the History Sheet 64 of the year 2009 on the petitioner.
Heard Sri U.D.Jai Bhima Rao, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that all the cases which were registered against the petitioner herein are no longer pending and the petitioner got acquitted in all the cases and therefore, continuation of the history sheet against the petitioner is not sustainable in law, and also not in accordance with the Police Standing Order No.601.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home would submit that no cases are pending against the petitioner and further submit that though the said cases were ended in acquittal, there is a chance that the petitioner may repeat the offences and likely to indulge in violence.
Admittedly, the impugned suspect sheet was opened against the petitioner earlier with certain alleged offences. Even as per the counter affidavit, no other case is pending against the petitioner herein as on today. It is not the case of the respondents/police that the petitioner has been shown as accused in any other case or he was directed to bind over under Section 107 Cr.P.C.
Going by the Police Standing Order No.601, the petitioner would not come within the purview of any of the clauses mentioned therein. Clause 1 of the Police Standing Order No.601 contemplates that suspect sheets may be opened against the persons, who habitually commit, attempt to commit, or abet the commission of offences involving a breach of the peace, disturbances to public order, and security. In the present case on hand, except the above mentioned cases registered against the petitioner herein, there are no other cases pending against him.
By virtue of the same, it can safely be inferred that the petitioner herein would not come within the purview of habitual offender. Neither had he abetted the commission of offences involving breach of peace nor was he responsible for causing disturbance to public order or security. When such is the case, continuation of history sheet against the petitioner herein would amount to abuse of process of the Court.
In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is allowed, directing the respondents/police to take necessary action forthwith, for closure of the history sheet opened against the petitioner herein, soon after receipt of copy of the order.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, the interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.