( 1 ) SARJEET Singh, petitioner by virtue of the present petition seeks quashing of the history sheet opened with respect to the petitioner and for a direction to the respondent to destroy the history sheet and from restraining the respondent from taking finger prints, photograph etc. which have to be kept in the police record.

( 2 ) THE facts which prompt the petitioner to file the present petition are that there were certain cases registered against the petitioner at Police Station trilok Purl, Shakarpur, Lodhi Colony, Mayur Vihar etc. He has never been convicted by any court and some cases out of the cases that have been registered are pending. According to the petitioner he ha been implicated falsely in those cases because of certain rivalry and that as a result of those cases that are pending the petitioner s name has been entered in the register of history sheets that is being maintained. It is on these broad facts that it is claimed that the said order referred to above deserves to be quashed.

( 3 ) NOTICE had been issued to the respondent and in the affidavit submitted the respondent justifies the order that has been so passed. The Deputy commissioner of Police (Hqrs.) in his affidavit asserts that petitioner is involved in 9 criminal cases. In 1992 petitioner was found involved in three cases and thereafter in 1998 he was again found involved in a case punishable under Section 448/506/34 indian Penal Code. The petitioner is stated to be a desperate character and he along with associates attacked the police officials of Police Station Lodhi colony when they went to his house to arrest him. Keeping in view the activities of the petitioner when the officer incharge of Police Station Trilok Puri put forward a proposal for opening of history sheet of the petitioner so that a watch is kept on his criminal activities. It was opened on 4/07/1994. Despite opening of history sheet and surveillance, he committed further crimes. It is denied that petitioner has been involved in false cases. It is further denied that local police is visiting the house of the petitioner in his absence or is threatening the petitioner and members of his family. So far as case no. 157/2000 Police Station Lodhi Colony is concerned, it is claimed that the case was registered against the petitioner on the complaint of the principal of Dayal Singh College because petitioner got admission on basis of the forged certificates.

( 4 ) ON the strength of these facts, learned counsel for the petitioner had urged that in most of the cases the petitioner has either been discharged or has been acquitted. There are a few cases that are pending trial. According to the petitioner s learned counsel this does not satisfy the necessary ingredients of the punjab Police Rules to enter the name of the petitioner as a history sheeter. while with equal vehemence the learned counsel for the State contends that it is unnecessary that petitioner must be convicted of certain cases. If the concerned officer is satisfied on basis of the material on the record then in terms of Punjab Police Rules Chapter 23, the name of the petitioner should be entered in the register maintained for history-sheeters and that in the facts keeping in view the track record of the petitioner the order in question is justified.

( 5 ) IN order to appreciate the question in controversy reference can well be made to the relevant provisions of the Punjab Police Rules as applicable to the Union Territory of Delhi. Chapter 23 of the said rules has been framed for prevention of offences. Under Rule 23. 1 the officer incharge of the police station have to pay special attention to villages and have to move in any case in the area where crime has occurred or registered bad characters and suspects whose history sheets are on the record and are alive. The information regarding mode of livelihood of bad characters shall be obtained by personal visits and enquiries. Rule 23. 2 further prescribes that wh