JUDGMENT : 1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. hasbeen preferred claiming the following reliefs: “That criminal petition of the present petitioner may kindly be allowed and history sheet pending before police station anadra district sirohi against the present petitioner be quashed and set aside.”. 2. Brief facts of the case as are that present petitioner has been informed by the police station anadara district sirohi that a historysheet has been opened against the present petitioner on account of registration of several cases against him then present petitioner approach to the respondent department and sought the copy of the order historysheet as well as relevant documents but respondent department turned down the request of the present petitioner through his counsel submitted an application under right to information act 2005 and sought the copy of relevant documents as well as details of cases pending against the present petitioner then respondent department sent a detail reply through order dated 20/07/2021 and informed that the historysheet has been opened against the present petitioner and which is still operating in police station anadara but respondent department never supplied the copy of the order of opening the historysheet as well as relevant documents except the list of pending cases against him. 3. As per the communication dated 10.12.2023, the details of cases registered against the petitioner are as under: Sr. No FIR No. & Date Section Police Station Judgment/ Order 1. No. 07/3.02.2009 482, 486 IPC & 19/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act Anadra Acquittal 2. No.20/08.02.2011 19/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act Barloot Acquittal 3. No. 71/11.06.2012 19/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act Anadra Acquittal 4. No. 278/04.10.2011 19/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act Abu Road, Sadar Acquittal 5. No. 199/01.07.2014 19/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act Abu Road, Sadar Pending trial 6. No. 03/08.07.2009 19, 20/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act Abkari, Sirohi Acquittal 7. No. 133/31.05.2021 19/54, 14/54, 54D of Rajasthan Excise Act Saroopganj Pending trial 8. No.175/15.04.2022 19/54, 54A, 54D of Rajasthan Excise Act Abu Road, Sadar Pending trial 4. No. 199/01.07.2014 19/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act Abu Road, Sadar Pending trial 6. No. 03/08.07.2009 19, 20/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act Abkari, Sirohi Acquittal 7. No. 133/31.05.2021 19/54, 14/54, 54D of Rajasthan Excise Act Saroopganj Pending trial 8. No.175/15.04.2022 19/54, 54A, 54D of Rajasthan Excise Act Abu Road, Sadar Pending trial 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Rule 4.4 and Rule 4.9 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965, the history-sheet 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 A.G.A. 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, 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. 8. 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 history-sheeter, 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 surveillanc eregister, 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 4.4and 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. 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. 9. 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 10.12.2023 passed by the SHO, P.S. Sirohi, Sirohi along with 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.