Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


M.Kulothunga Cholan v. The Director General of Police - W.P.No.38703 of 2002 and W.P.No. 38709 of 2002 [2002] RD-TN 809 (11 October 2002)


DATED: 11/10/2002



W.P.No.38703 of 2002 and W.P.No. 38709 of 2002

and W.P.Nos. 38738 to 38744 of 2002

M.Kulothunga Cholan .. Petitioner In WP:38703/02 M.Karikala Cholan .. Petitioner In WP:38704/02 M.Sibi Chakaravarthy .. Petitioner In WP:38705/02 K.Senthil Kumar .. Petitioner In WP:38706/02 R.Thunaiyarasan .. Petitioner In WP:38707/02 K.Sankar .. Petitioner In WP:38708/02 Raja Raja Cholan .. Petitioner In WP:38709/02 M.Nappolian .. Petitioner In WP:38738/02 M.Mummidi Cholan .. Petitioner In WP:38739/02 M.Panchali .. Petitioner In WP:38740/02 Puhalandi @ Vijayanandh .. Petitioner In WP:38741/02 T.Devi .. Petitioner In WP:38742/02 P.Banumathi .. Petitioner In WP:38743/02 K.Kalaiarasan .. Petitioner In WP:38744/02 -Vs-

1. The Director General of Police


2. The Superintendent of Police

(Rural), Trichy.

3. Mr.Elangovan

Deputy Superintendent of Police

(Rural), Law & Order, Lalgudi


4. The Inspector of Police

E1, Lalgudi Police Station

Lalgudi, Trichy. .. Respondents In all W.P.s PRAYER: Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of Certiorari as stated therein.

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Regupathy

For Respondents : Mr.D.Krishnakumar Special Govt. Pleader


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, 44 3, 444, 446, 445, 447, 448, and 449, opened on 7.5.2002 and quash the same. 2. The impugned proceeding dated 7.5.2002 that is challenged in these writ petitions reads as follows:


The Inspector

E1, Lalgudi Police Station



The Superintendent of Police

Lalgudi Circle, Lalgudi.


Sub: Rowdy History Sheet opening in the marginally noted personRefreshment. 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


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.


Yours Sincerely

Open History Sheet

Ilangovan Rajendran D.S.P.-Lalgudi Inspector of Police

Date: 07.05.2002 Lalgudi

History No:

1. 436 M.Kulothunga Cholan


2. 437 M.Karikala Cholan


3. 438 M.Sibi Chakaravarthi


4. 439 M.Raja Raja Cholan


5. 440 K.Senthil Kumar


6. 441 R.Thunaiyarasan


7. 442 K.Sankar


8. 443 Nappolian


9. 444 M.Mummudi Cholan


10. 445 Puhalandi @ Vijayanandh


11. 446 M.Panchali


12. 447 T.Devi


13. 448 P.Banumathi


14. 449 K.Kalaiyarasan


3. 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.

4. 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 M.P. reported in 1975 (2) SCC 148, 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.

5. Mr.D.Krishnakumar, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents.

6. I have given careful consideration to the submissions of both sides.

7. The decision in GOBIND Vs. STATE OF M.P. reported in 1975 (2) SCC 148 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.

8. 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 under Section 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.

9. 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.

Index : Yes

Internet: Yes



1. The Director General of Police


2. The Superintendent of Police

(Rural), Trichy.

3. Mr.Elangovan

Deputy Superintendent of Police

(Rural), Law & Order, Lalgudi


4. The Inspector of Police

E1, Lalgudi Police Station

Lalgudi, Trichy.


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.