Back
2011 Supreme(All) 2803
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Tarun Agarwala;ACJ, U.C.Dhyani, JJ.
Ganesh Thakurathi -Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others -Respondent
Cri. Writ Petition No. 140 of 2011
Decided On : 12-10-2011
The Court emphasized that the opening and continuation of a history sheet under Regulation 228 should be justified by the presence of habitual criminal behavior or likelihood of such behavior, and that the required sanctions and reasons for surveillance must be adhered to.
Headnote:
History Sheet - Quashing of History Sheet - U.P. Police Regulations - Regulation 228
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking the quashing of a history sheet opened against him under Regulation 228 of the U.P. Police Regulations. The petitioner had been acquitted in all eight criminal cases lodged against him, and no further cases had been registered against him since 2001.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the surveillance and continuation of the history sheet against the petitioner were unjustified, as the petitioner had been acquitted in all cases and no further criminal activity had been reported since 2001. The Court also noted that the history sheet was opened without the required sanction and that the reasons for surveillance were irrelevant.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondents were justified in continuing with the surveillance and keeping the history sheet alive under Regulation 228 of the Police Regulations.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the ingredients mentioned under Regulation 228 to open a history sheet against the petitioner did not exist, as the petitioner had been acquitted in all cases and no further criminal activity had been reported since 2001. The Court also noted the lack of required sanction for opening the history sheet.
Final Decision: The history sheet opened against the petitioner under Regulation 228 of the U.P. Police Regulations was quashed, and the writ petition was allowed.
Heard Shri A.S. Rawat, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. C.S. Rawat, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Amit Bhatt, the learned Addl. G.A. for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for the quashing of history sheet No. 22-A dated 23rd October, 2001 opened in Police Station Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar under Regulation 228 of the U.P. Police Regulations. The petitioner contends that he is a permanent resident of Village Mahatgaon, Chakarpur, Police Station Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, doing social work and is also espousing the cause of the weaker section of the society. He is a member of the Bhartiya Janta Party and presently holding the post of the State General Secretary of the Youth Wing of the B.J.P. Between 1998-2001, the petitioner was a student studying in a Degree College at Khatima and, during this period, eight criminal cases were lodged against him, the details of which are specified hereunder:-
Sr.No.
Case Crime Number
1 Case Crime No. 618/98 u/S 147, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Khatima
2 Case Crime No. 586/00 u/S 147, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Khatima
3 Case Crime No. 622/00 u/S 394, 506 I.P.C., P.S.
2 Khatima
4 Case Crime No. 487/01 u/S 147, 506, 427 I.P.C., P.S. Khatima
5 Case Crime No. 585/01 u/S 386, 147, 504, 506, 323 I.P.C.
6 Case Crime No. 586/01 u/S 395, 511, 353, 504, 506 I.P.C. & S.C./S.T. Act
7 Case Crime No. 593/01 u/S ¾ Gangster Act
8 Case Crime No. 67/01 u/S 147, 452, 506, 294 I.P.C.
3. On the basis of these criminal cases being lodged against the petitioner, a history sheet No.22-A was opened against him under Regulation 228 of the Police Regulations. In paragraph 4 of the writ petition, it has been alleged that in all these eight cases, the petitioner has been acquitted honourably by the trial court. Inspite of being acquitted, the petitioner alleges that the history sheet is still opened and continuous surveillance upon him is being conducted by the police without any cogent reasons. Consequently, the present writ petition has been filed for the quashing of the history sheet.
4. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit contending that the history sheet was opened under Regulation 228 on account of the pendency of eight criminal cases pending against the petitioner and that the history sheet was opened in accordance with the law. The respondents, however, admitted that the petitioner has been acquitted in all the eight cases. In paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit, the respondents have further admitted that after 2001, no criminal case has been registered against the petitioner at the concerned police station.
5. In the light of the aforesaid admission, the question which comes for consideration before the Court is whether the respondents were justified in continuing with the surveillance and keeping the history sheet alive under Regulation 228 of the Police Regulations. For facility, Regulation 228 of the Police Regulations is extracted hereunder:-
“228. Part V consists of history sheets. These are the personal records of criminals under surveillance. History-sheets should be opened only for persons who are or likely to become habitual criminal or abettors of such criminals. There will be two classes of history-sheets :
(1) Class A history-sheets for dacoits, burglars, cattle-thieves, railway-goods wagon thieves, and abettors thereof.
(2) Class B history-sheets for confirmed and professional criminals who commit crimes other than dacoity, burglary, cattle-theft, and theft from railway goods wagons, e.g., professional cheats and other experts for whom criminal personal files are maintained by the Criminal Investigation Department, poisoners, cattle poisoners, railway passenger thieves, bicycle thieves, expert pick-pockets, forgers, coiners, cocaine and opium smugglers, hired ruffians and goondas, telegraph wire-cutters, habitual illicit distillers and abettors thereof.
History-sheets of both classes will be maintained in similar f
