ORDER : 1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for setting aside the order dated 04.04.2013 passed by the learned Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh whereby history sheet of the petitioner was opened. 2. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner are that on 04.04.2013 the Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh, upon the application received from the Station House Officer, Police Station Senti Police Station, Chittorgarh 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. First Information Report Case No. Before the Ld. Court Offence Under Sections Decision/Result 1. FIR No. 222/2000 of Police Station Kotwali Chittorgarh 353/2000 U/s 341, 323 of IPC Decided vide order dated 17.07.2001 2. FIR No. 522/2004, of PS Kotwali Chittorgarh 198/2005 U/s 143, 341, 323 of IPC Decided vide order dated 19.08.2005 3. FIR No. 535/2006 of PS Kotwali Chittorgarh 386/2006 U/s 147, 149, 341, 323 of IPC Acquited vide order dated 20.07.2010 4. FIR No. 181/2007 of Police Station Kotwali Chittorgarh 354/2007 U/s 451, 323, 427, 34 of IPC Decided through settlement vide order dated 22.06.2011 5. FIR No. 58/2009 of PS Kotwali Chittorgarh 90/2009 U/s 147, 451, 341, 323, 427, 504, 149 of IPC Imposed fine of Rs.500/- vide order dated 21.12.2010 6. FIR No. 332/2009 PS Chanderia 46/2013 U/s 147, 149, 308, 365, 323 IPC Acquited because of benefit of doubt vide order dated 31.01.2017 7. FIR No. 64/2013 PS Sadar Chittorgarh 75/2016 U/s 147, 148, 144, 323, 452, 327 IPC Acquitted vide order dated 16.03.2016 8. FIR No. 65/2013 PS Sadar Chittorgarh 226/2014 U/s 147, 149, 341, 323, 324 307 of IPC Acquitted vide order dated 06.04.2016 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. 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 Dy.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. The petitioner was prosecuted in the year 2000 and convicted for the offence under Sections 341 and 323 which was of the nature of petty nature. He was again prosecuted and convicted for the offence under Section 147, 149, 341, 323 and 307 of IPC whereafter more than 20 years have elapsed but he was never convicted in any case. After 2013 his indulgence has not been noticed in any criminal activity. It can be presumed that he has reformed to a great extent. Now, showing his name in the list of criminals and publicizing the same would be a stigma and may put hindrance in his reformation. He should be given an opportunity to come in the main stream of the society. Putting name in the list of notorious criminals may cause incalculable harm to his reputation which he gained after 2013 and may be deleterious to his self esteem. Besides the above, the decision of the respondent-authority in enlisting him in the panel of criminals is not in accordance with the provisions of Police Rules 4.4 and 4.9 of the Rules 1965. This Court had an occasion to deal with issue in the case of Ayub Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan . For ready reference, the same is being reproduced hereinbelow:- “1. This criminal misc. This Court had an occasion to deal with issue in the case of Ayub Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan . For ready reference, the same is being reproduced hereinbelow:- “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 05.12.1990 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 05.12.1990 the Superintendent of Police, Sirohi, upon the application 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. First Information Report Offence Under Sections Decision/Result 1. FIR No. 134/1988, PS Aburoad City U/s 341, 323 IPC Acquittal vide order dated 01.10.1990 2. FIR No. 205/1988, PS Aburoad Sadar U/s 379 IPC Convicted vide order dated 28.01.1994 3. FIR No. 215/1989 PS Aburoad Sadar U/s 4/25 Arms Act Rs. 100/- fine vide order dated 19.01.1994 4. FIR No. 216/1989 PS Aburoad Sadar U/s 33 Forest Act Acquital vide order dated 01.05.1996 5. FIR No. 32/2002 PS Reodar U/s 354, 323 IPC Acquittal vide order dated 17.01.2003 6. FIR No. 270/2004 PS Aburoad Sadar U/s 279, 304A IPC Rs. 800/- fine vide order dated 25.08.2007 7. FIR No. 142/2008 PS Aburoad Sadar U/s 447, 427 IPC and 3(1) (x) SC/ST Act FR given 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 Dy.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 ) 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 4.4 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. 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 05.12.1990 (Annexure-1) passed by the Superintendent of Police, 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.” 9. The enunciation made in the case referred supra, the instant petition is allowed and the order dated 04.04.2013, passed by the Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh along with entire proceedings pursuant thereto is quashed and set aside, 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.