A history sheet can only be maintained if a person has three consecutive convictions or more than ten cases, subject to judicial scrutiny.

ORDER :

1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for setting aside the order dated 04.04.2013 passed by the learned Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh whereby history sheet of the petitioner was opened.

2. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner are that on 04.04.2013 the Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh, upon the application received from the Station House Officer, Police Station Senti Police Station, Chittorgarh passed the order, whereby the direction was given to open the history sheet against the petitioner.

3. 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 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. The petitioner was prosecuted in the year 2000 and convicted for the offence under Sections 341 and 323 which was of the nature of petty nature. He was again prosecuted and convicted for the offence under Section 147, 149, 341, 323 and 307 of IPC whereafter more than 20 years have elapsed but he was never convicted in any case. After 2013 his indulgence has not been noticed in any criminal activity. It can be presumed that he has reformed to a great extent. Now, showing his name in the list of criminals and publicizing the same would be a stigma and may put hindrance in his reformation. He should be given an opportunity to come in the main stream of the society. Putting name in the list of notorious criminals may cause incalculable harm to his reputation which he gained after 2013 and may be deleterious to his self esteem. Besides the above,