Order

1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of the BNSS has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“1. Quash and set aside the continuation of the History Sheet maintained agianst the petitioner by respondents.

2. Direct deletion of petitioner's name from the surveillance Register No.8 and closure of the History Sheet under Rule 4.4/4.9 Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965”.

2. Brief facts of the case as are that present petitioner came to know that a history sheet has been opened against him at the Police Station Gangrar on account of registration of several cases against him. The petitioner approached the respondent authorities for quashing of the history sheet, but to no avail.

3. The particulars of the cases registered against the petitioner are as under :-

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Rule4.4 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 as well as definition of the Habitual offender under the Rajasthan Habitual Offenders Act, 1953. As per learned counsel, 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 Rules1965.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per Rule 4.9 of the Rules 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 A.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. This Court, in the case of Sanjay Vs. State And Ors. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 792/2016 and Other connected matter) 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 of theRajasthan Police Rules, 1965, it is also stated that anything reasonable could be the criteria for determination of entering a person’s name in the surveillance register, as per his being habitual to commit crime.

11.1 For the sake of brevity, this Court arrives at the following uniform criteria to determine whether an entry of a person’s name in the surveillance register is justified:

(a) A person having three consecutive convictions against him, and being a habitual offender, shall be liable for continuance of entry of his name in the surveillance register, while declaring him as a history-sheeter; however, if the convictions are 15 years or before, then the history sheet/entry of his name in the surveillance register will not fall in this criteria of sustenance.

OR

(b) If a person is having more than ten cases against him, in totality, irrespective of the result, his name, at the discretion of the concerned authority, entered in the surveillance register, while declaring him as a history-sheeter,