JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 17.10.2013 whereby the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara has directed the S.H.O., Police Station, Subhash Nagar, Bhilwara for opening history sheet against the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the order impugned passed by the Superintendent of Police is without jurisdiction as the requirement of opening history sheet as provided in sub-para 3(a) of Rule 4.4 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1965') has not been satisfied. It is submitted that essential requirement for obtaining history sheet regarding existence of two or more convictions for the offences enumerated in Rule 8.22 of the rules of 1965 is not satisfied. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier also this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2548/2012 decided on 11.12.2012 has ordered for quashing similar order dated 18.11.2012 passed by the Superintendent of police, Bhilwara whereby the direction was issued to same S.H.O. for opening history sheet against the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that after quashing of the order dated 18.11.2012, the petitioner has not been convicted in two or more cases for the offences enumerated in Rule 8.22 of the rules of 1965 and, therefore, the decision of Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara of opening history sheet against the petitioner is absolutely without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decisions of this Court rendered in the cases of Shyam Lal v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2012(3) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1325 , Sohan Lal Vaishnave v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2548/2012 decided on 11.12.2012) and Ramgopal Jain v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.3916/2012 decided by the Jaipur Bench of this Court on 4.4.2013) 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submitted that the conduct of the petitioner is not good and many criminal cases are pending against him, therefore, Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara is justified in passing the order impugned. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.3916/2012 decided by the Jaipur Bench of this Court on 4.4.2013) 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submitted that the conduct of the petitioner is not good and many criminal cases are pending against him, therefore, Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara is justified in passing the order impugned. However, the learned Public Prosecutor has fairly conceded that after quashing of the order dated 18.11.2012 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara, the petitioner is not convicted in two or more cases for the offences enumerated in Rule 8.22 of the Rules of 1965. 6. Looking to the above facts and circumstances of the case and in absence of conviction of the petitioner in two or more cases for the offences enumerated in rule 8.22 of the Rules of 1965, the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara is not justified in directing the S.H.O., Police Station Subhash Nagar, District Bhilwara to open history sheet against the petitioner. 7. Hence, this criminal misc. petition is allowed. The order dated 17.10.2013 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara is quashed and set aside.Petition allowed. *******