Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 482 (RAJ)

Dal Chand v. State

2023-02-10

NUPUR BHATI

body2023
ORDER : (Nupur Bhati, J.) This Civil Writ Petition has been preferred claiming for the following reliefs:- "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that an appropriate writ, order or direction this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:- 1. allows this writ petition. 2. direct the respondents to strike out the name of the petitioner from the history-sheet maintained at the Police Station-Pratap Nagar, District: Bhilwara. 3. pass any other order, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. allow cost of the writ petition to the petitioner." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a history-sheet was opened against the petitioner, who was facing trial in one criminal case, being Criminal Regular Case No. 508/2009, which is pending consideration before the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bhilwara and 2 FIRs have been registered against him under the Rajasthan Excise Act, in the year 2012. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has not been convicted in any criminal case, yet a list is maintained by the Police Station-Pratap Nagar, containing the list of cases against the petitioner without disclosing the same to the petitioner. And that, upon the request of the S.H.O. Police Station- Pratap Nagar, the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara vide impugned letter dated 13.06.2011 (Annex-1) granted sanction for opening the history-sheet against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the delay in challenging the history-sheet opened against him, was owing to the fact that he was unaware of the same. That he was repeatedly summoned to the concerned Police Station, and thereafter upon making an enquiry, he was told that a history-sheet was opened against him vide the impugned letter. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the said list, on the basis of which the history-sheet against him was opened was not disclosed to him nor any copy of the same was supplied to him. And that, he was only issued a copy upon seeking information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the aforesaid factual backdrop, the petitioner filed a detailed affidavit on 21.03.2014 (at Annex-2) requesting that appropriate orders be passed in this regard and the history-sheet opened against him be closed accordingly. 7. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the aforesaid factual backdrop, the petitioner filed a detailed affidavit on 21.03.2014 (at Annex-2) requesting that appropriate orders be passed in this regard and the history-sheet opened against him be closed accordingly. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the provision of law contained in the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 relevant to opening of history sheet are contained in Rules 4.4 and 4.9. 7.1 Learned counsel further submits that for a history-sheet to be opened against a person, under Rule 4.4 of the Rules of 1965, the person has to be either a proclaimed offender, released convict or more importantly who has been convicted twice or more than twice of offences mentioned in Rule 8.22. 7.2 Learned counsel also submits that for a history-sheet to be opened against a person under Rule 4.9 of the Rules of 1965, the name of the person should first be entered in the Surveillance Register. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of Sanjay v. State and Ors. (S.B. Criminal Misc.(Pet) No. 792/2016) decided on 23.01.2023. Relevant portion of the said judgment, as relied upon by the learned counsel, is reproduced hereunder:- "9.1 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." 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the history-sheet has been rightly opened against the petitioner vide the impugned letter. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that though there is no prescribed limitation period in preferring a writ petition, the petitioner has preferred the present petition after a delay of two years without a reasonable explanation. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender and has indulged in various criminal activities viz. illicit liquor smuggling, land grabbing, gambling, etc. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that multiple cases under various offences in the years 1986, 1993, 1999, 2000, 2004, 2005, 2011 and 2013 and therefore the history-sheet was opened against the petitioner. And that the list of cases, as on 22.03.2021, against the petitioner lodged at Police Station-Pratap Nagar, District-Bhilwara is placed on record as Annexure-R/1. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents drew the attention of this Court to Rule 4.9 of the Rules of 1965 and submits that if a person is reasonably believed to be a habitual offender then a history-sheet may be opened against him under the Rules of 1965. And that, the same is irrespective of whether he has sustained any convictions. 14. Heard. Perused the record of the case as well as the judgment cited at the Bar. 15. This Court, from a perusal of the list of cases, as on 22.03.2021, lodged against the petitioner, as produced before this Court by the learned counsel for the respondents at Annex.-R/1, finds that of the total of 11 cases lodged against the petitioner, he was acquitted of the charges leveled against him in three cases, two were closed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties, and six cases, of the years 1986, 2000, 2004 and 2011, are pending consideration before the concerned Courts. 16. This Court, looking into given factual matrix, is of the firm opinion that the petitioner cannot be said to be a habitual offender. 17. This Court therefore finds that the case of the petitioner squarely falls within the criteria as enumerated by this Court in the case of Sanjay (supra), as the last case registered against the petitioner is of the year 2011 18. 17. This Court therefore finds that the case of the petitioner squarely falls within the criteria as enumerated by this Court in the case of Sanjay (supra), as the last case registered against the petitioner is of the year 2011 18. As an upshot of the above discussion, and looking into the Rajasthan Police Rules of 1965, this Court is of the firm opinion that there are no reasonable grounds for opening the history sheet against the present petitioner, and therefore the history-sheet against him deserves to be quashed and set aside. 19. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed. The history sheet opened against the petitioner vide the impugned letter dated 13.06.2011 (Annex.-1) is hereby quashed and set aside, and the respondents are directed to strike out the name of the petitioner from the history-sheet maintained at the Police Station-Pratap Nagar, District: Bhilwara. 20. No order as to costs.