JUDGMENT :

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.

1. This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred with the following prayer:

“(A) It is, therefore, most humble and respectfully prayed that Misc petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed and respondents no. 2, 3, 4 and 5 be directed to strike out the name of petitioner from the history-sheet maintained at the police station and order dated 27.03.2006 passed by Superintendent of Police, Bikaner and al consequence proceeding may kindly be quashed.

(B) by an appropriate order or direction, the respondents no. 3, 4 and 5 directed to not filed complaint on the basis wrong history sheet.

(C) by an appropriate order or direction, the respondents no. 2 directed to correct the case history of the petitioner.

(D) The cost of the MISC petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.

(E) Any other, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner.”

2. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Dhirendra Singh, assisted by Ms. Priyanka Borana, are that the petitioner is a businessman, with business dealings in relation to properties. And that, on 18.03.2006, the S.H.O., Jamsar requested the Superintendent of Police, Bikaner to open a history sheet against the petitioner and vide communication dated 27.03.2006, the Superintendent of Police, Bikaner permitted the same. And that the petitioner was declared a history-sheeter under the provision of law contained in Rule 4.9 (2) of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965.

3. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that certain false cases were foisted upon the petitioner, and that on the basis of the same, the name of the petitioner was unfairly entered in a history sheet, which is being maintained till date.

4. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the petitioner does not come within the definition of ‘habitual offender’ as provided under Section 2 sub-section (1) (a) of the Rajasthan Habitual Offenders Act, 1953.

5. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that looking into the overall facts and circumstances, it is clear that the petitioner does not fall under the purview of the Rule 4.9 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965. Reference was also made to Rules 4.4 and 8.22 of the said Rules.

For the sake of brevity, the relevant provisions of law, referred to hereinabove, are reproduced herein-under:

Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965

4.4 Surveillance Register No. 8:

(1) In every police station, other than those of the railway police, a Surveillance Register shall be maintained in form 4.4(1).

(2) In part I of such register shall be entered the names of persons commonly resident within or commonly frequenting the local jurisdiction of the police station concerned, who belong to one or more of the following classes:

(a) All persons who have been proclaimed under section 87, Code of Criminal Procedure.

(b) All released convicts in regard to whom. an order under section 565, Criminal Procedure Code, has been made.

(c) All convicts the execution of whose sentence as suspended in the whole, or any part of whose punishment has been remitted conditionally under section 401, Criminal Procedure Code.

(d) All persons restricted under Rules of Government mode under section 8 of the Rajasthan Habitual Offenders Act, 1953.

(3) In part II of such register may be entered at the discretion of the Superintendent:

(4) Persons who have been convicted twice, or more than twice, of offences mentioned in rule 8.22.

(b) persons who are reasonably believed to be habitual offenders or receivers of stolen property whether they have been convicted or not.

(c) persons under security under sections 109 or 110, code of Criminal Procedure.

(d) convicts released before the expiration of their sentences under the Prisons Act and Remission Rules without imposition of any conditions.

Note: This rule must be strictly construe