Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 615 (RAJ)

Vijendra Sihag v. State of Rajasthan

2025-03-05

FARJAND ALI

body2025
ORDER : 1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “It is, therefore, most repsectfully prayed on behalf of the petitioner that this Misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 08.07.2016 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar may kindly be quashed and set aside and the SHO PS Ghamoodwali District Sri Ganganagar may kindly be directed to remove the name of the petitioner from history-sheet/surveillance register of PS Ghamoodwali District Sri Ganganagar.” 2. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner are that on 07.07.2016, the SHO, Police Station Ghamoodwali, District Sri Ganganagar sent a letter to grant permission to open history-sheet of the petitioner pursuant to total 14 cases pending against him at that time. The Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar upon receipt of the aforesaid application, passed the impugned order dated 08.07.2016, whereby permission was granted to open history sheet against the petitioner. 3. The details of cases registered against the petitioner in the District Sri Ganganagar are as under: S. No. FIR No. Police Station Offence U/Sec. Decision/Result 1. 7/2009 PS Ghamoodwali 420, 465, 167 IPC Acquitted vide judgment dated 12.03.2014 2. 146/2010 PS Ghamoodwali 420, 467, 468, 120-B IPC Acquitted vide judgment dated 08.01.2014 3. 255/2011 PS Jawaharnagar 427, 448, 34 IPC Acquitted vide judgment dated 12.01.2019 4. 460/2011 PS Jawaharnagar 452, 323, 34 IPC Acquitted vide judgment dated 06.12.2016 5. 396/2011 PS Sadar 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 177, 181 IPC Pending in the Court 6. 67/2012 PS Ghamoodwali 447, 427, 147, 148, 149 IPC Acquitted vide judgment dated 21.04.2017 7. 361/2012 PS Pilibanga 340, 323 IPC, 3 of the SC/ST Act Pending in the Court 8. 143/2012 PS Ghamoodwali 420 IPC Acquitted vide judgment dated 28.10.2017 9. 80/2013 PS Ghamoodwali 323, 341, 447, 34, 427 IPC Acquitted vide judgment dated 08.01.2014 10. 104/2014 PS Ghamoodwali 430 IPC Acquitted vide judgment dated 18.11.2016 11. 86/2015 PS Ghamoodwali 427, 430, 120-B IPC Acquitted vide judgment dated 20.03.2017 12. 267/2014 PS Sadar 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC Acquitted vide judgment dated 30.09.2023 13. 298/2016 PS Jawahar Nagar 452, 342, 352, 357, 363, 365, 148 and 149 IPC Acquitted vide judgment dated 21.12.2016 14. 91/2016 PS Ghamoodwali 430 IPC Pending in the Court 15. 86/2015 PS Ghamoodwali 427, 430, 120-B IPC Acquitted vide judgment dated 20.03.2017 12. 267/2014 PS Sadar 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC Acquitted vide judgment dated 30.09.2023 13. 298/2016 PS Jawahar Nagar 452, 342, 352, 357, 363, 365, 148 and 149 IPC Acquitted vide judgment dated 21.12.2016 14. 91/2016 PS Ghamoodwali 430 IPC Pending in the Court 15. 106/2017 PS Jawahar Nagar 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC Acquitted vide judgment dated 24.08.2023 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. 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out total 15 cases registered against the petitioner, he has been acquitted in 11 cases, negative final report has been filed in 1 case and 3 cases are pending trial. The reason for high number of cases is land dispute of the petitioner with his relatives, due to which false cases were lodged, but now the parties have resolved the dispute through compromise and in most of the cases, the petitioner has been acquitted. The petitioner is not a habitual offender and last case was registered against him in the year 2017. 7. On the other hand, learned Dy. The petitioner is not a habitual offender and last case was registered against him in the year 2017. 7. 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. 8. Heard learned counsel for both parties as well as perused the record of the case. 9. 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. (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. 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. In the case at hand, the petitioner has not been convicted in any of the case registered against him; out of 15 cases registered, he has been acquitted in 11 cases and negative final report has been submitted in 1 case; the last case was registered against him in the year 2017. 10. In the case at hand, the petitioner has not been convicted in any of the case registered against him; out of 15 cases registered, he has been acquitted in 11 cases and negative final report has been submitted in 1 case; the last case was registered against him in the year 2017. 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 impugned order dated 08.07.2016 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar 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. 11. All the pending applications stand disposed of.