Back
2020 Supreme(All) 1248
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
B.K. NARAYANA, PRAKASH PADIA, JJ.
Satpal Singh Chhabra and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 32514 of 2018
Decided On : 19-02-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Swetashwa Agarwal
Point of law : The subjects of history sheets of Class A will unless they are "starred' remain under surveillance for at least two consecutive year of which they have spent no part in jail. When the subject of a history sheet of class A whose name has not been "starred' who has never been convicted of cognizable offence and has not been in jail or suspected of any offence or absented himself in suspicious circumstances for two consecutive years his surveillance will be discontinued, unless for special reasons to be recorded in the inspection book of the police station the Superintendent decides that it should continue.
Headnote:
Quash of order – Appeal against conviction - Petitioner is a reputed man of his town and doing the business and running a daily newspaper in the name of "Dainik Badri Vishal". It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner was falsely implicated in 9 cases disclosed in the history-sheet. It is further stated that it is apparent that a series of criminal cases relating to disputed properties for which civil suites were also filed before the Court of competent jurisdiction at District Saharanpur, were deliberately instituted against the petitioner and are product of malice. From perusal of the history-sheet, which is appended in the writ petition it is clear that on the basis of nine criminal cases relating to the offences-against property, history-sheet in question came into existence for the petitioner –
Finding of the court :In this way, history sheet could be continued for two years beyond 2006 and thereafter since no case was registered against the petitioner in the next two consecutive years and he had never been in jail or convicted of any cognizable offence during two years after 2006, the history-sheet could not be continued beyond that period unless Superintendent decided so, for special reasons to be recorded in the inspection book of the police station - Intention of the Regulation 231 is not that history sheet should remain open against anyone for all time to come. Once the person maintains good conduct and he is not convicted in any cognizable offence or has been in jail during that period and also he was not suspected of any offence or absented himself in suspicious circumstances for the said two consecutive years, his surveillance is to be discontinued except under orders of Superintendent on the basis of reason recorded at police station during inspection. No such eventuality has happened or occurred in the case of the petitioner during the said two consecutive years, therefore, history sheet ought to have been closed. Continuance of history-sheet beyond the period as indicated above is wrong and, therefore, petitioner deserves to the relief prayed for - Although all these facts were duly mentioned by the petitioner while making the representation pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 20.4.2018 but none of them was taken into consideration in legal manner whatsoever by the respondent No. 2 while rejecting the same vide its order dated 5.7.2020, which is under challenge in the present writ petition –
Result :Petition allowed
JUDGMENT :
Prakash Padia, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Manju Thakur, learned AGA for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition inter-alia with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 5.7.2018 passed by the S.S.P., Saharanpur rejecting the petitioner's representation for closure of history-sheet No. 30-A opened against the petitioner at Police Station Kutubsher, District Saharanpur since 4.4.2006.
3. The facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the petitioner is a reputed man of his town and doing the business and running a daily newspaper in the name of "Dainik Badri Vishal". It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner was falsely implicated in 9 cases disclosed in the history-sheet. It is further stated that it is apparent that a series of criminal cases relating to disputed properties for which civil suites were also filed before the Court of competent jurisdiction at District Saharanpur, were deliberately instituted against the petitioner and are product of malice. From perusal of the history-sheet, which is appended in the writ petition it is clear that on the basis of nine criminal cases relating to the offences-against property, history-sheet in question came into existence for the petitioner in the year 2006. The details of the aforesaid nine cases were mentioned in paragraph 9 of the writ petition. From perusal of the same, it is clear that in some of the cases either final report has been submitted or the proceedings were quashed by the Competent Authority. It is further stated in paragraph 10 of the writ petition that apart from the nine cases as mentioned in the history-sheet eight other cases were also registered against the petitioner with the reference and mention in paragraph 10 of the writ petition. It is further stated in the writ petition that in as many as four cases reference of which has been made by the petitioner in the petition, the petitioner has no connection.
4. It is further argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner that after the year 2007, no criminal case whatsoever has been registered against him nor he has been involved in any case pertaining to any civil dispute or land dispute or anything else but no orders were passed by the authorities for closure of the history-sheet in question. In this reasons a comprehensive representation was made by the petitioner before the State Government on 23.8.2016, copy of which is appended as Annexure 20 to the writ petition. Since no action was taken on the same, the petitioner earlier preferred a writ petition before this Court being Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 15785 of 2017 (Satpal Singh Chhabra v. State of U.P. and 3 others). The aforesaid writ petition was finally decided by another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its judgment and order dated 20.4.2018 directing the petitioner to prefer a representation before the concerned S.S.P./S.P. along with a self attested copy of the writ petition within two weeks. The authority concerned was directed to decide the same and pass appropriate orders within two months. The order passed on 20.4.2018 is reproduced here-in below:
"Heard Ms. Swetashwa Agarwal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashish Pandey, learned AGA for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.
The present writ petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the history sheet No. 30-A dated 4.4.2006, command the respondent concerned not to give effect to history sheet No. 30-A dated 4.4.2006 in Police Station Kutubsher, Saharanpur.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he made a representation before the S.S.P., Saharanpur, as it appears from the representation dated 23.8.2016 and copy of the same has been annexed on page No. 134.
We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also learned A.G.A.
It would appear from the record that the police has opened history sheet of the petitioner on the
