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.

ORDER :

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

“It is therefore most humbly prayed that this Misc.petition may kindly be allowed:

• That by an appropriate order and direction be issued and respondents may kindly be directed to close the history sheet file against the petitioner.

• That by an appropriate order and direction be issued and the history -sheet file (Annexure-6)may kindly be quashed and set aside.

• That the any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, by which the petitioner may get full justice may also be allowed.”

2. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner are that the Superintendent of Police, Bikaner, upon a report dated 23.09.2022 received from the SHO, Police Station Arthuna, District Banwara passed an order to open the history sheet against the petitioner.

3. The details of cases registered against the petitioner in the various districts 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. 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. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Sanjay Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.792/2016) along with other connected matters decided on 23.01.2023, as also in the case of Rakesh Alias Rekhraj Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.6584/2022) decided on 23.01.2023, which were also pertaining to opening of the history-sheet, observed as under:-

11. While considering Rules 4.4 and 4.9 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 as well as the judgment cited, this Court observes that for sustaining a history-sheet against a person, either a person has to have three cases of convictions which would bring him within the domain of the definition of “Habitual Offender” so that he could be declared as a history-sheeter, by entering his name in the surveillance register, or as per Rule 4.9