ORDER : 1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “It is therefore most humbly prayed that this Misc.petition may kindly be allowed: • That by an appropriate order and direction be issued and respondents may kindly be directed to close the history sheet file against the petitioner. • That by an appropriate order and direction be issued and the history -sheet file (Annexure-6)may kindly be quashed and set aside. • That the any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, by which the petitioner may get full justice may also be allowed.” 2. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner are that the Superintendent of Police, Bikaner, upon a report dated 23.09.2022 received from the SHO, Police Station Arthuna, District Banwara passed an order to open the history sheet against the petitioner. 3. The details of cases registered against the petitioner in the various districts are as under: Sl. No. FIR No. Police Station District Offence U/Sec. Challan/ FR/Pending Decision/ Result 1. 259/2006 Kalinjara Banswara 324 IPC 146/199 of MC Act 249 25.09.2016 Pending Trial 2. 333/2009 Kotwali Pratapgarh 3/25 of Arms Act 266 23.11.2009 Convicted 3. 119/2009 Piplakhund Pratapgarh 366, 376, 365, 344 of IPC 120 21.12.2009 Acquitted 4. 137/2009 Piplakhund Pratapgarh 224 of IPC 96 29.10.2010 Convicted 5. 76/2014 Arthuna Banswara 447, 427, 507/34 of IPC 58 06.06.2018 Convicted vide order dated 25.04.2015 6. 449/2018 Kotwali Banswara 505, 188, 153-B of IPC Pending Investigation 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 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Rules of 1965’) as well as definition of the Habitual offender under the Rajasthan Habitual Offenders Act, 1953. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, 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 of 1965. 5. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, 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 of 1965. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per Rule 4.9 of the Rules of 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. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Sanjay Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.792/2016) along with other connected matters 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. 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 judgments rendered in Sanjay (supra) and Rakesh Alias Rekhraj (supra), allows the instant petition; accordingly, while quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Banswara to open the history-sheet against the petitioner 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. 10. Stay petition as well as all the pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.