JUDGMENT : 1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that the impugned order of opening history sheet against the petitioner, dated 09.09.1997 (An-1) passed by learned Superintendent of Police, Sirohi may kindly be quashed and set aside. And in alternate the History Sheet of the petitioner may kindly be closed. And any other orders or direction, interim order for which this Hon’ble Court may feels just and proper in the facts & circumstances, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner”. 2. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner are that on 09.09.1997 the Superintendent of Police, Sirohi, upon the report received from the Station House Officer, Police Station Abu Road Sadar, passed the order, whereby the direction was given to open the history sheet against the petitioner. 3. The details of cases registered against the petitioner are as under: S.No. Case No. Offence(s) Result 1. 06/1995 Sections 341, 324 & 323 IPC Compromise 2. 152/1996 Sections 447, 341,325 & 323 IPC Compromise 3. 169/1996 Sections 19/54 Rajasthan Excise Act Acquittal 4. 147/1997 Sections 147, 307, 324 & 323 IPC Acquittal 5. 207/1995 Sections 307, 324 & 323/34 IPC Acquittal 6. 237/2000 Sections 147, 148, 542, 354, 324 & 323/34 IPC Compromise 7. 241/2007 Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325 & 447 IPC Compromise 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Rule 4.4 and Rule 4.9 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965, the historysheet can be opened if the name of a person is entered in the surveillance Register and if person falls under the essential ingredients provided in Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 as well as definition of the Habitual offender under the Rajasthan Habitual Offenders Act, 1953. As per learned counsel, the present petitioner is not falling under the definition of Habitual offender and also does not fall under the Rule 4.4 and Rule 4.9 of the Rules 1965. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per Rule 4.9 of the Rules 1965, the concerned officer should have reasonable belief that a person is habitually addicted to crime or to be aider or abettor; the petitioner does not even fall under the category of Habitual Offender. 6. On the other hand, learned GA-cum- AAG Mr. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per Rule 4.9 of the Rules 1965, the concerned officer should have reasonable belief that a person is habitually addicted to crime or to be aider or abettor; the petitioner does not even fall under the category of Habitual Offender. 6. On the other hand, learned GA-cum- AAG Mr. MA Siddiqui assisted by Mr. AR Malkani opposed the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner was declared as the history sheeter, which is valid in eye of the law and the concerned Superintendent of Police came to such conclusion, after duly looking into the overall facts and circumstances of the present case and the material available before him. 7. Heard learned counsel for both parties as well as perused the record of the case. 8. This Court finds the aforementioned brief background of the cases, were reproduced hereinabove, pursuant to the necessary details having been furnished by the GA-cum-AAG, and the same reveals that : 8.1. The total 7 cases were registered against the petitioner, he was acquitted in 3 of them, while 4 cases was closed on the basis of compromise. 9. This Court, in the case of Sanjay Vs. State And Ors. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 792/2016 and Other connected matter) decided on 23.01.2023, as also in the case of Rakesh Alias Rekhraj Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 6584/2022) decided on 23.01.2023, which were also pertaining to opening of the history-sheet, observed as under: - 11. While considering Rules 4.4 and 4.9 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 as well as the judgment cited, this Court observes that for sustaining a history-sheet against a person, either a person has to have three cases of convictions which would bring him within the domain of the definition of “Habitual Offender” so that he could be declared as a historysheeter, by entering his name in the surveillance register, or as per Rule 4.9 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965, it is also stated that anything reasonable could be the criteria for determination of entering a person’s name in the surveillance register, as per his being habitual to commit crime. 11.1 For the sake of brevity, this Court arrives at the following uniform criteria to determine whether an entry of a person’s name in the surveillance register is justified: (a) A person having three consecutive convictions against him, and being a habitual offender, shall be liable for continuance of entry of his name in the surveillance register, while declaring him as a history-sheeter; however, if the convictions are 15 years or before, then the history sheet/entry of his name in the surveillance register will not fall in this criteria of sustenance. OR (b) If a person is having more than ten cases against him, in totality, irrespective of the result, his name, at the discretion of the concerned authority, entered in the surveillance register, while declaring him as a history-sheeter, is justified and deserves continuance; but if a person is having more than ten cases and all of them are 10 years old, then the history sheet/entry of his name in the surveillance register, will not fall in this criteria of sustenance. 11.2 As an upshot of the above, this Court observes that a history-sheet shall be amenable to judicial scrutiny as above, and thus, while keeping into consideration Rule 4.4 and Rule 4.9 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 and the precedent law, this Court is of the opinion that the entry of a person’s name in the surveillance register/history sheet, on count of his being a habitual offender, shall not be interfered with, if there are three consecutive convictions against such person, or such an entry in the history sheet/surveillance register shall not be interfered with, if a person is having more than 10 cases, in totality, against him, irrespective of the result. (The condition of 10 cases shall not apply, if there are no cases in last 10 years; similarly, if the convictions are 15 years or before, then again the exclusion of the person’s name from the history sheet/surveillance register shall be warranted). 11.3 This Court thus observes that if a person suffers from any of the above disqualifications, then he shall be disentitled from claiming relief against being declared as a history-sheeter. 11.3 This Court thus observes that if a person suffers from any of the above disqualifications, then he shall be disentitled from claiming relief against being declared as a history-sheeter. It is relevant to note that in Diwan Singh (supra), while granting relief to the petitioner therein, it was observed that the petitioner therein was a senior citizen against whom the last conviction was in the year 2003, and the last case registered against him was in the year 2007, while his case had come up for final adjudication in the year 2022. 10. Thus, this Court, in the light of the judgment rendered in Sanjay (Supra) and Rakesh Alias Rekhraj (supra), allows the instant petition; accordingly, while quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 09.09.1997 (Annexure-1) passed by the Superintendent of Police, Sirohi alongwith entire proceedings pursuant thereto, the respondents are directed to strike out the name of the petitioner from the history-sheet maintained at the concerned police station. All pending applications stand disposed of.