Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1927 (ALL)

Devend Kumar @ Devendra Kumar v. State Of U. P.

2022-12-06

SUNEET KUMAR, SYED WAIZ MIAN

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ratnendu Kumar Singh, learned A. G. A. for the State. 2. The petitioner claims to be working as Estate Manager in Modi Pon Limited Hapur Road, Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad; by means of the present writ petition he is seeking quashing of the history-sheet 31A, dated 20.8.2007, Police Station-Modi Nagar, district-Ghaziabad. 3. The petitioner has categorically pleaded that in Case Crime No. 527 of 2007, under Sections-147, 323, 342, 452, 448, 427 and 511 I. P. C., Police Station-Modi Nagar, district-Ghaziabad he has been acquitted by the court concerned vide judgement and order dated 4.9.2009. The certified copy of the order has been placed on record. In Case Crime No. 126 of 1986, under Sections-147, 148, 323, 324 and 307 I. P. C., Police Station-Bhojpur, district-Ghaziabad petitioner, after investigation came to be discharged, and police report was not filed against him. 4. In this backdrop, it is submitted that the history-sheet no. 31 A opened on 20.8.2007, has not been reviewed in view of the provisions of Regulation 231 of U. P. Police Regulations, which reads as under: "(231) The subjects of history sheets of class A will unless they are ''starred' remain under surveillance for at least two consecutive year of which they have spent no part in jail. When the subject of a history sheet of class A whose name has not been ''starred' who has never been convicted of cognizable offence and has not been in jail or suspected of any offence or absented himself in suspicious circumstances for two consecutive years his surveillance will be discontinued, unless for special reasons to be recorded in the inspection book of the police station the Superintendent decides that it should continue. When the subject of a history sheet of class A is ''starred' he will remain starred for at least consecutive years during which he has not been in jail or been suspected of a cognizable offence or had any suspicious absence recorded against him. At the end of that period, if he is believed to have reformed he will cease to be ''starred' but will remain subject to surveillance will be discontinued only if during that period no complaints have been recorded against him. In closing the history sheets of any ''unstarring' ex-convicts and especially ex-convicts dacoits great care should be exercised." 5. At the end of that period, if he is believed to have reformed he will cease to be ''starred' but will remain subject to surveillance will be discontinued only if during that period no complaints have been recorded against him. In closing the history sheets of any ''unstarring' ex-convicts and especially ex-convicts dacoits great care should be exercised." 5. From the above, it is apparent that surveillance in respect of a person whose history sheet of Class-A has been opened, is to be continued for two consecutive years subject to his not having been in jail for any part of said two years. It is also clear from above that history sheet beyond two years cannot continue except by a special order or unless he has been found to have been convicted in any cognizable offence and has been in jail or was suspected for any offence or absented himself in suspicious circumstances during said two consecutive years. 6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State the averments made in the writ petition have not been denied. In para 7 of the counter affidavit it is stated that since the petitioner is a criminal minded man, he may again indulge in criminal activity, therefore, history-sheet has not been reviewed. Relevant part of para 7 of the counter affidavit is extracted below: " .......... It is further submitted that the petitioner is man of criminal mind and he may again indulge in criminal activities. All the averments to the contrary made in paragraphs under reply are wrong and denied. Photocopies of the D. C. R. C. and C. C. T. N. S. reports of the petitioner is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. CA 1 to this affidavit." 7. Further the case of the petitioner is that the record relating to the petitioner for review of the continuance of the history-sheet was not placed before the competent authority. 8. In view of the decisions rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Sanjay Karnwal Vs. State of U.P. and others, [2010 (70) ACC 507] and Guru Bux Singh Bakshi Vs. 8. In view of the decisions rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Sanjay Karnwal Vs. State of U.P. and others, [2010 (70) ACC 507] and Guru Bux Singh Bakshi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, LAWS(ALL) 1994 1 85, we hold that continuing the history-sheet of the petitioner of Class-A in view of Regulation 231 of the Police Regulations, has not been justified by the State as the petitioner thereafter has not indulged in any repetitive criminal activity. No other case has been lodged or reported against the petitioner after 2007. 9. The approach in not reviewing the history-sheet of the petitioner by stating that petitioner is 'of criminal mind' clearly shows the highhandedness of the State respondents. They have given go by to the statutory Regulations. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed and history-sheet No. 31A, dated 20.8.2007 opened at Police Station-Modinagar, district-Ghaziabad is quashed. 11. The approach of the State has been casual. Further, there is dereliction of the duty on the part of the Superintendent of Police, Ghaizabad, for not reviewing the history-sheet even when no criminal case is pending against the petitioner since the year, 2007 and not following the mandate of the U. P. Police Regulations. Second respondent is saddled with a cost at Rs. 20,000/-to be deposited with the High Court Legal Services Committee, Allahabad, within eight weeks from the date of order. 12. Learned A. G. A. to communicate the order and ensure compliance.