IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a history-sheet can only be maintained if a person has three convictions or more than ten cases against them, subject to judicial scrutiny.

JUDGMENT :

1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. hasbeen preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“That criminal petition of the present petitioner may kindly be allowed and history sheet pending before police station anadra district sirohi against the present petitioner be quashed and set aside.”.

2. Brief facts of the case as are that present petitioner has been informed by the police station anadara district sirohi that a historysheet has been opened against the present petitioner on account of registration of several cases against him then present petitioner approach to the respondent department and sought the copy of the order historysheet as well as relevant documents but respondent department turned down the request of the present petitioner through his counsel submitted an application under right to information act 2005 and sought the copy of relevant documents as well as details of cases pending against the present petitioner then respondent department sent a detail reply through order dated 20/07/2021 and informed that the historysheet has been opened against the present petitioner and which is still operating in police station anadara but respondent department never supplied the copy of the order of opening the historysheet as well as relevant documents except the list of pending cases against him.

3. As per the communication dated 10.12.2023, the details of cases registered against the petitioner are as under:

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 A.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 and Other connected matter) decided on 23.01.2023, as also in the case of Rakesh Alias Rekhraj Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc.