A history-sheet can only be maintained if a person has three convictions or more than ten cases, irrespective of outcomes; the petitioner did not meet these criteria.

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:

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