W.P.Crl.No.515 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 14.07.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN W.P.Crl.No.515 of 2026 P.Dravid Rangasamy ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Veperry, Chennai - 600007. 2.The Sub Inspector of Police, P2-Otteri Police Station, Chennai – 600012. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ petition(Crl.) filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st Respondent to remove the petitioner name from rowdy list record in H.S.No.41/2019 which opened by the 2nd respondent, by representation of the petitioner dated 25.02.2026 in accordance with law For Petitioner : Mr.R.P.Sriganesh For Respondents : Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) ORDER This writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to the 1st Respondent to remove the petitioner name from rowdy list record in Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Crl.No.515 of 2026 H.S.No.41/2019 which opened by the 2nd respondent, by representation of the petitioner dated 25.02.2026 in accordance with law

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that though two criminal cases had been registered against the petitioner, both the cases ended in acquittal. However, the petitioner’s name was not removed from the history sheet in HS.No.41 of 2019 with the second respondent. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation in this regard. However, so far no action has been taken by the respondents. 3. The learned Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner seems to be a habitual offender. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court. 5. The issue involved in this writ petition has already been dealt with by the Madurai Bench of this Court and detailed order has been Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Crl.No.515 of 2026 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.133410/Crime4(3)/2018 dated 05.10.2018, which reads as follows :- The Hon'ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in its order dated 26.09.2018, in a batch of cases, in the reference second cited, while quashing the History Sheet maintained in certain Police Stations and which are challenged before the Hon'ble Court, has observed and directed as follows :-

"28................ there is a general pattern adopted trend by the Police to continue to retain the names of the persons in the history sheet showing them as rowdies without any justifiable reasons. The Police did not realise that the purpose of opening a history sheet is to keep surveillance and check on hardened and habitual criminals in order to maintain peace and tranquility in the society. 29.As mentioned above, it also becomes the duty of the Police to keep reviewing the history sheet regularly to ensure that the persons, who are no longer required to be retained in the list are removed from the list, since it involves the dignity and public image of a person ............. 30.Whenever representations are made by the persons whose names are found in the history sheet, it is the duty of the respondent Police to consider the same ............. It Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Crl.No.515 of 2026 will be of no use for the respondent Police to keep the representation pending even without considering them and driving the concerned persons to file appropriate petition before this Court. This Court only hopes that the Police learns a lesson at least after the passing of this order, to be more sensitive and serious in maintaining history sheet.

31........... The Police seems to be adopting the practice of registering FIRs against the persons under Sections 109 and 110 of CrPC, just to open the history sheet and to justify the continuance of the name of the persons in the history sheet. ............... automatic opening of history sheet can be done only if the person has been convicted more than twice under Section 109 of CrPC and more than once under Section 110 of CrPC. Therefore, mere registration of an FIR under Sections 109 and 110 of CrPC can never justify the action of the Police in continuing to retain the name of the person in the history sheet. 32..................... 33.This Court wants to make it clear that in all future cases, where the retention of the name of a person in history sheet becomes a subject matter of challenge before this Court, if this Court finds that the name of the person has been retained without any justification and is in contravention with PSO Nos.746 to 748 and the guidelines given by this Court, compensation will be granted to the victims and the same will be directed to be Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Crl.No.515 of 2026 recovered from the monthly salary of the Inspector of Police in whose station the history sheet is being maintained........" 2. Provisions contained in PSO 746 to 748 and the above orders of the Hon'ble High Court shall be followed scrupulously while maintaining the history sheets by the SHOs.

3. All Sub-Divisional Officers shall periodically review all History sheet files and Rowdy sheet files maintained in the Police Station under their jurisdiction. 4. IGPs in Zones, COPs in citites and the SPs in District shall sensitize all the Police personnel working under their jurisdiction in this regard and also review the cases periodically." 6. In view of the above circular issued by the Director General of Police, Chennai, this Court is inclined to pass the following orders :- (i) The petitioner is directed to submit a fresh representation before the respondents and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Pulianthope within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. (ii) On receipt of such representation, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Pulianthope is directed to consider the representation, in view of Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Crl.No.515 of 2026 the direction issued by this Court and pass orders on merits within the period of twelve weeks from the date of the receipt of the representation. 7. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 14.07.2026 Index : Yes/No Neutral citation : Yes/No Speaking/non-speaking order lok Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Crl.No.515 of 2026 To 1.The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Veperry, Chennai - 600007.

2.Deputy Commissioner of Police, Pulianthope 3.The Sub Inspector of Police, P2-Otteri Police Station, Chennai – 600012. 4. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai. Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Crl.No.515 of 2026 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, lok W.P.Crl.No.515 of 2026 14.07.2026 Page 8 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Crl.No.515 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 14.07.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN W.P.Crl.No.515 of 2026 P.Dravid Rangasamy ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Veperry, Chennai - 600007. 2.The Sub Inspector of Police, P2-Otteri Police Station, Chennai – 600012. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ petition(Crl.) filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st Respondent to remove the petitioner name from rowdy list record in H.S.No.41/2019 which opened by the 2nd respondent, by representation of the petitioner dated 25.02.2026 in accordance with law For Petitioner : Mr.R.P.Sriganesh For Respondents : Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) ORDER This writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to the 1st Respondent to remove the petitioner name from rowdy list record in Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Crl.No.515 of 2026 H.S.No.41/2019 which opened by the 2nd respondent, by representation of the petitioner dated 25.02.2026 in accordance with law

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that though two criminal cases had been registered against the petitioner, both the cases ended in acquittal. However, the petitioner’s name was not removed from the history sheet in HS.No.41 of 2019 with the second respondent. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation in this regard. However, so far no action has been taken by the respondents. 3. The learned Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner seems to be a habitual offender. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court. 5. The issue involved in this writ petition has already been dealt with by the Madurai Bench of this Court and detailed order has been Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Crl.No.515 of 2026 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.133410/Crime4(3)/2018 dated 05.10.2018, which reads as follows :- The Hon'ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in its order dated 26.09.2018, in a batch of cases, in the reference second cited, while quashing the History Sheet maintained in certain Police Stations and which are challenged before the Hon'ble Court, has observed and directed as follows :-

"28................ there is a general pattern adopted trend by the Police to continue to retain the names of the persons in the history sheet showing them as rowdies without any justifiable reasons. The Police did not realise that the purpose of opening a history sheet is to keep surveillance and check on hardened and habitual criminals in order to maintain peace and tranquility in the society. 29.As mentioned above, it also becomes the duty of the Police to keep reviewing the history sheet regularly to ensure that the persons, who are no longer required to be retained in the list are removed from the list, since it involves the dignity and public image of a person ............. 30.Whenever representations are made by the persons whose names are found in the history sheet, it is the duty of the respondent Police to consider the same ............. It Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Crl.No.515 of 2026 will be of no use for the respondent Police to keep the representation pending even without considering them and driving the concerned persons to file appropriate petition before this Court. This Court only hopes that the Police learns a lesson at least after the passing of this order, to be more sensitive and serious in maintaining history sheet.

31........... The Police seems to be adopting the practice of registering FIRs against the persons under Sections 109 and 110 of CrPC, just to open the history sheet and to justify the continuance of the name of the persons in the history sheet. ............... automatic opening of history sheet can be done only if the person has been convicted more than twice under Section 109 of CrPC and more than once under Section 110 of CrPC. Therefore, mere registration of an FIR under Sections 109 and 110 of CrPC can never justify the action of the Police in continuing to retain the name of the person in the history sheet. 32..................... 33.This Court wants to make it clear that in all future cases, where the retention of the name of a person in history sheet becomes a subject matter of challenge before this Court, if this Court finds that the name of the person has been retained without any justification and is in contravention with PSO Nos.746 to 748 and the guidelines given by this Court, compensation will be granted to the victims and the same will be directed to be Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Crl.No.515 of 2026 recovered from the monthly salary of the Inspector of Police in whose station the history sheet is being maintained........" 2. Provisions contained in PSO 746 to 748 and the above orders of the Hon'ble High Court shall be followed scrupulously while maintaining the history sheets by the SHOs.

3. All Sub-Divisional Officers shall periodically review all History sheet files and Rowdy sheet files maintained in the Police Station under their jurisdiction. 4. IGPs in Zones, COPs in citites and the SPs in District shall sensitize all the Police personnel working under their jurisdiction in this regard and also review the cases periodically." 6. In view of the above circular issued by the Director General of Police, Chennai, this Court is inclined to pass the following orders :- (i) The petitioner is directed to submit a fresh representation before the respondents and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Pulianthope within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. (ii) On receipt of such representation, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Pulianthope is directed to consider the representation, in view of Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Crl.No.515 of 2026 the direction issued by this Court and pass orders on merits within the period of twelve weeks from the date of the receipt of the representation. 7. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 14.07.2026 Index : Yes/No Neutral citation : Yes/No Speaking/non-speaking order lok Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Crl.No.515 of 2026 To 1.The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Veperry, Chennai - 600007.

2.Deputy Commissioner of Police, Pulianthope 3.The Sub Inspector of Police, P2-Otteri Police Station, Chennai – 600012. 4. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai. Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Crl.No.515 of 2026 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, lok W.P.Crl.No.515 of 2026 14.07.2026 Page 8 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis