Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Farjand Ali, J.
Mahendra @ Banti S/o Bhakraram Vishnoi - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP and ors. - Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2570/2025
Decided On : 27-03-2025
(A) Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 - Rules 4.4 and 4.9 - Habitual Offender - The petitioner challenged the opening of a history sheet against him based on 17 pending cases, arguing he does not meet the criteria for being a habitual offender. The court found that the petitioner has only one conviction and 14 pending trials, thus quashing the order to open the history sheet. (Paras 4, 11, 11.1, 11.2, 11.3)
(B) Judicial Scrutiny - The court established that a history sheet can only be sustained if a person has three convictions or more than ten cases, with specific conditions regarding the age of cases. (Paras 11.1, 11.2)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner faced a history sheet due to 17 cases, with only one conviction and 14 pending trials, claiming false cases due to personal disputes.
Findings of Court:
The court quashed the order to open the history sheet, stating the petitioner does not qualify as a habitual offender.
Issues: Whether the petitioner qualifies as a habitual offender under the Rajasthan Police Rules and the validity of the history sheet.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner does not meet the criteria for a habitual offender as defined by the Rajasthan Police Rules, thus the history sheet cannot be maintained.
Result: Petition allowed.
ORDER :
Farjand Ali, J.
1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
“(A) The record of the police in relation to the petitioner may kindly be summoned.
(B) The letter dated 14.03.2014 issued by the Respondent No.1 should be quashed and set aside.
(C) The respondents may kindly be restrained from initiating history sheet proceeding against the petitioner and also restrained from adding the name of the petitioner in the Surveillance register.”
2. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner are that on 23.01.2014, the SHO, Police Station Dangiyawas, District Jodhpur sent a letter to grant permission to open history-sheet of the petitioner pursuant to total 17 cases pending against him at that time. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, upon receipt of the aforesaid application, passed the impugned order dated 14.03.2014, whereby permission was granted to open history sheet against the petitioner.
3. The details of cases registered against the petitioner are as under:
| Sl. No. | Case Number/Date /Sections | Police Station | Result of Police | Decision/ Result |
| 1. | 419/27.12.200 6 Sections 41 and 23 of IPC | Pratapnagar | Charge Sheet No.12/27.0 1.2007 | Pending Trial |
| 2. | 64/21.06.2008 Section 406 of IPC | Kherapa | Charge Sheet No.9/28.09. 2008 | Pending Trial |
| 3. | 336/10.12.200 8 Section 489 ABC IPC and 3/25 of Arms Act | Chopasani Housing Board | Charge Sheet | Pending Trial |
| 4. | 437/11.12.200 8 Section 8/8 of NDPS Act | Pratapnagar | Charge Sheet No.156/14. 05.2009 | Convicted vide judgment dated 12.12.2015 |
| 5. | 115/22.04.200 9 Section 309 of IPC | Ratanada | Charge Sheet No.87/30.0 4.2009 | Pending Trial |
| 6. | 425/21.11.201 1 Section 224 of IPC | Udaimandir | Charge Sheet No.77/13.0 3.2013 | Pending Trial |
| 7. | 159/01.11.201 2 Sections 323, 353, 307 and 120B of IPC | Luni | Charge Sheet No.20/24.0 4.2014 | Pending Trial |
| 8. | 188/01.11.201 2 Sections 8/15 NDPS Act | Dangiyawas | Charge Sheet No.36/24.0 4.2013 36A/31.12. 2013 | Acquitted vide judgment dated dated 31.05.2017 |
| 9. | 122/13.05.201 3 Sections 3/25 of Arms Act | Ratanada | Charge Sheet No.96/30.0 5.2013 | Pending Trial |
| 10. | 246/14.05.201 3 Sections 79, 411, 420, 467, 468, 471, 482 and 120B of IPC | Pratapnagar | Charge Sheet No.351/18. 03.2013 | Pending Trial |
| 11. | 71/01.06.2013 Sections 32, 353, 224 and 120 B of IPC | Luni | Charge Sheet No.04/01.0 1.2014 | Pending Trial |
| 12. | 154/24.10.201 3 Sections 07, 353, 120 B of IPC and 3 PDPP Act | Dangiyawas | Charge Sheet No.09/14.0 3.2014 | Pending Trial |
| 13. | 252/24.10.201 3 Sections 332, 35 of IPC | Ratanada | Charge Sheet No.139/30. 05.2014 | Pending Trial |
| 14. | 253/24.10.201 3 Sections 332, 353 and 307 of IPC | Ratanada | Charge Sheet No.140/30. 05.2014 | Pending Trial |
| 15. 16. 17. | 542/26.10.200 1 of Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 of IPC and 3/25 of Arms Act 114/14.12.201 7 Sections 341, 323, 27, 427, 379 and 143 of IPC 67/15.07.2020 Sections 8/15 of NDPS Act | Pratapnagar Dangiyawas Nikumbh Chittorgarh | Charge Sheet No.82/16.0 4.2014 Charge Sheet No.113/30. 11.2018 Charge Sheet No.10/04.0 2.2021 | Pending Trial Pending Trial Pending Trial |
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 o
AI
A history sheet can only be sustained if a person has three convictions or more than ten cases, with specific conditions regarding the age of cases.
A history sheet can only be maintained if a person has three consecutive convictions or more than ten cases, subject to judicial scrutiny.
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.
A history sheet can only be sustained if an individual has three consecutive convictions or more than ten cases, with specific conditions regarding the age of convictions.
The criteria for maintaining a history-sheet require either three convictions or more than ten cases against an individual, irrespective of outcomes.
A history sheet can only be sustained if a person has three convictions or more than ten cases, subject to specific time constraints on older cases.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
