A history sheet cannot be maintained without sufficient legal basis, particularly after acquittal, as it infringes upon individual dignity.

1. By this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought a writ quashing the order by which history sheet of the petitioner has been opened by the respondents and his name entered in Register No. 10 of Police Station Sarai Rohilla and directing the respondents to destroy his history sheet, finger prints, foot prints and his photographs illegally taken and kept on the records of Police Station Sarai Rohilla, Delhi and also for a direction to the respondents not to call the petitioner to Police Station Sarai Rohilla, Delhi, without lawful reasons.

2. The case of the petitioner is that after opening the history sheet and putting his name in Register No. 10 the officers of the aforesaid police station started treating the petitioner as a criminal and harassing him almost every day by calling him to the police station. The petitioner states that by putting his name in the Register and opening history sheet, he has been lowered in the estimation of his relatives and friends and has been humiliated. The petitioner also alleges that due to this act of the respondents he is suffering greatly and it has become difficult for him either to live at his house or to pursue his avocation. A notice was issued to the respondents and the petitioner was directed on 13th. Aug. 1985 to give further and proper details regarding the allegation made in Para No. 10 of the plaint. The petitioner submitted as Additional Affidavit in which he has given details in respect of the police officials who have been visiting his place on various dates and calling him to police station.

3. An affidavit has been submitted by Shri R. N. Singh, S.H.O. Police Station Sarai Rohilla in which he has stated that the petitioner is a man of desperate character and was involved in various cases, namely, FIR No. 347/73 under S. 325, IPC, P.S. Sarai Rohilla, FIR No. 932/75 under S. 324, IPC, P.S. Sarai Rohilla, FIR No. 302/76 under S.25/54/59, Arms Act, P.S. Sarai Rohilla, FIR No. 68/79 under S.27/54/59, Arms Act, P.S. Sarai Rohilla, FIR 182/79 under S.27/54/59, Arms Act, P.S. Sarai Rohilla, FIR 562/79 under S.25/54/59, Arms Act, P.S. Sarai Rohilla and DD No. 13 - A under S.107/151, Cr. P.C., dated 12-11-84, police station, Sarai Rohilla. It would be seen that the case under S. 324, IPC, was compromised and case under S.107/151 was dismissed and the petitioner was discharged. In all other cases the petitioner has been acquitted.

4. Shri R. N. Singh, respondent, in his affidavit further says that history sheet of the petitioner was opened on 17-6-76 by the then SHO Police Station Sarai Rohilla, Delhi, because of the involvement of the petitioner in the first three cases and the opening of history sheet was approved by the Sub Divisional Police Officer on 21-6-76 and his name was kept in Bundle 'B' with a view to keep trace of his record of criminal activity. It is further stated that this record of his is a private and confidential document and that he was involved in cases of violence and he being a man of desperate and dangerous character was also involved in some cases of breach of peace. He has, however, denied that the petitioner is being harassed or that he is being called to the police station. Putting the name of the petitioner in Register No. 10 is also denied. It is also denied that the petitioner is being kept under surveillance.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri N.S. Bhatnagar and also Mr. Sodhi Teja Singh appearing for the respondents. History sheet is opened under the Punjab Police R.1934, Chapter XXIII under the Heading, P