JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Sunil Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that on registration of few criminal cases against the petitioner, on the basis of First Information Reports of non-cognizable offences, on account of enmity with Pappu Tiwari, local area political leader, during the period August 2008-2009, name of the petitioner was included in Register No. 8 [meant for keeping surveillance over people whose names find place in the register], vide history sheet No. A-88/2009 dated 22.10.2009 was opened at Police Station Shiv Ratan Ganj, District Rai Bareli. 3. On a perusal of the record, it reflects that pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and learned counsel for the parties have consented that the writ petition may be decided at the admission stage itself as provided under the High Court Rules. 4. Notices were issued and a counter-affidavit has been filed by learned AGA wherein it has been stated that at P.S. Haza, case was registered on 15.9.2008 which was numbered as Case Crime No. 708/2008 under Sections 147/148/323/504/506 IPC in which Charge-sheet No. 109/2008 dated 29.9.2008 was filed and the matter is pending for adjudication before the competent Court. Again, one NCR No. 63/2008 under Sections 352/504/506 IPC was registered. Apart from the aforesaid case, proceedings under Section 107(16) was also pending against the petitioner. Rest of the facts as averred in the writ petition are not being disputed. 5. Reiterating the averments made in the writ petition, a rejoinder-affidavit has been filed. It has specifically stated that all the aforesaid cases are forged, as they have been lodged on account of political pressure. Even the proceedings under Sections 3/4 U. P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 has also been initiated. Till August, 2008, no case against the petitioner was registered, but during the period August 2008-2009, due to political rivalry, Crime Case No. 708/2008 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.; (2) NCR No. 63/08 under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.; (3) NCR No. 67/08 under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.; (4) Crime Case No. 830/08 under Sections 3/4 U.P. Goondas Act, (5) Crime Case No. 1050/09 under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and (6) Crime Case No. 746/08 under Sections 110 have been lodged against the petitioner. 6. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of an FIR, which has been lodged, criminal cases of non-cognizable offences registered are not covered under Regulation 228 of the Police Regulations and offences should be covered as provided under Regulations 229-231 of the Police Regulations, but in the instant case the said Regulations are not covered. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no knowledge about Case Crime No. 1005/2009 and he has neither been served with any summon nor he has been arrested in the said criminal case. It has further been stated that the petitioner is pursuing his LL.B Course and is a law abiding citizen and the cases which have been registered against the petitioner on the basis of the FIR was so lodged in different matters, are not being covered under Regulation 228 of the Police Regulation and for opening a history sheet, Regulation 229 to 231 of the Police Regulation are attracted. 8. As the right of privacy has been held to be fundamental right by the Apex Court, Regulation 228 of U. P. Police Regulations be declared ultra vires to Article 19 (1) (d) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 9. No doubt, the right of privacy has been declared as a fundamental right and a person cannot be deprived of the freedom of movement guaranteed by the Article 19 (1) (d) as well as personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21, but it cannot be said that such right is absolute right; on contrary it is subjected to reasonable restrictions and for that reason, in a case reported in AIR 1975 SC 1378 , Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, their Lordships of the Apex Court has held that : “The right to privacy, will necessarily have to go through a process case-by-case development. Therefore, even assuming that the right to personal liberty, the right to move freely throughout the territory of India and the freedom of speech create an independent right of privacy as an emanation from them which one can characterize as a fundamental right, it cannot be held that the right is absolute.” 10. Therefore, even assuming that the right to personal liberty, the right to move freely throughout the territory of India and the freedom of speech create an independent right of privacy as an emanation from them which one can characterize as a fundamental right, it cannot be held that the right is absolute.” 10. The question which deserves consideration before this Court is as to whether the regulation in question gives an unbridled, uncanalised power to the police to use the power under the regulation in such a way to squeeze out the fundamental freedom of the citizen. In that regard, note of caution was given in Malak Singh v. State of P. and H. (1981 Cri LJ 320): (1981)1 SCG 420 : ( AIR 1981 SC 760 ), wherein Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chinnappa Reddy (as he then was) speaking on behalf of bench observed that : “But, surveillance may be instructive and it may so seriously encroach on the privacy of a citizen as to infringe his fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution and the freedom of movement guaranteed by Article19 (1) (d). That cannot be permitted.” 11. It was further observed that “History-sheeter and Surveillance registers” have to be and are confidential documents. Neither the person whose name is entered in the register nor any other member of the public can have access to the surveillance register. 12. It was further indicated : “But all this does not mean that the police have a licence to enter the names of whoever they like (dislike?) in the surveillance register; nor can the surveillance be such as to squeeze the fundamental freedoms guaranteed to all citizens or to obstruct the free exercise and enjoyment of freedoms; nor can the surveillance so intrude as to offend the dignity of the individual. Surveillance of persons who do not fall within the categories mentioned in Rule 23.4 or for reasons unconnected with the prevention of crime, or excessive surveillance falling beyond the limit prescribed by the rules, will entitle a citizen to the Court’s protection which the Court will not hesitate to give.” 13. It was also observed that “surveillance” therefore, has to be unobtrusive and within bounds.” 14. It was further observed that : “Ordinarily the names of persons with previous criminal record alone are entered in the surveillance register. It was also observed that “surveillance” therefore, has to be unobtrusive and within bounds.” 14. It was further observed that : “Ordinarily the names of persons with previous criminal record alone are entered in the surveillance register. They must be proclaimed offenders, previous convicts , or persons who have already been placed on security for good behaviour. In addition, names of the persons who are reasonably believed to be habitual offenders or receivers of stolen property whether they have been convicted or not may be entered. It is only in the case of this category of persons that there may be occasion for abuse of the power of the police officer to make entries in the surveillance register. But, here, the entry can only be made by the order of Superintendent of Police who is prohibited from delegating his authority under Rule 23.5. Further it is necessary that the Superintendent of Police must entertain a reasonable belief that persons whose names are to be entered in Part II are habitual offenders or receivers of stolen property. While it may be necessary to supply the grounds of belief to the persons whose names are entered in the surveillance register it may become necessary in some cases to satisfy the Court when an entry is challenged that there are grounds to entertain such reasonable belief.” 15. Thus, in the light of the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court, we have to look into the factual matrix as stated in the writ petition, counter-affidavit and rejoinder affidavit from which it comes out that the cases which are registered against the petitioner are not covered under the provisions of Para 228 of U.P. Police Regulations, the perusal of which shows that Class-A history sheets may only be opened for dacoits, burglars, cattle thieves and railway goods wagon thieves and abettors thereof and since the cases referred above registered against the petitioner nowhere shows that the petitioner may be termed as dacoit, burglar, cattle thief, railway goods wagon thief and abettor thereof, as such, the name which has been entered in Register No. 8 meant for history sheeters amounts to violation of the fundamental right of the petitioner with regard to freedom of movement as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) as well as Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the opening of history sheet of the petitioner vide History Sheet No. A-88 of 2009 dated 22.10.2009 at P.S. Shiv Ratan Ganj, District Rae Bareilly suffers from non-application of mind. Accordingly, the opposite parties are directed to delete the name of the petitioner from the aforesaid Register No. 8, i.e. History Sheet No. A-88 of 2009 dated 22.10.2009 at P.S. Shiv Ratan Ganj, District Rae Bareilly. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. —————