##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.321/2024

Kamlesh Kumar S/o Shri Kanhiya Lal, aged about 51 Years, R/o Bihariyan Chran Nadhi Benad Road, Police Station Kardhani,

Jaipur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, through PP

2. Superintendent of Police, Jaipur City (West), District Jaipur.

3. S.H.O., Police Station Kardhani, District Jaipur (West).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harish Agrawal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Chaudhary, P.P.

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

24/03/2026

1. By way of filing the instant criminal writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 06.11.2009 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Jaipur City (South), Jaipur by which it was ordered to open history sheet against the petitioner under Rule 4.9 of Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 (for short “the Rules of

1965”).

2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing and setting aside the same on the ground that the case of the petitioner does not fall within the prescribed parameters and the relevant provisions of the Rules of 1965 for opening history sheet. Counsel submits that in all, five different criminal cases were registered against the petitioner

(Uploaded on 27/03/2026 at 09:58:32 AM)

(Downloaded on 02/04/2026 at 03:12:45 AM)

(2 of 9) [CRLW-321/2024]

between the year 2003 to 2009 and in four criminal cases the petitioner has already been acquitted and only in one criminal case i.e. 56/2009, he has been convicted of the offences under Sections 143, 342, 365, 395, 323 I.P.C. by the Court of the Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan vide judgment dated 19.07.2012. Counsel submits that, as per the provisions contained under the Rules, 1965, there must be three successive convictions in five consecutive years for opening a history sheet against an accused. However, in the instant case, except for the one criminal case No.56/2009, the petitioner has not been convicted in any other case. Hence, the order impugned passed by the respondent-Authority is not sustainable in the eyes

of law.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer, but he is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by

counsel for the petitioner.

4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and

perused the material available on record.

5. Rule 4.9 of the Rules of 1965 provides for opening of the

History sheets, and the same reads as under:-

“4.9 History Sheets when opened. - (1) A history sheet, if one does not already exist, shall be opened in Form 4.9 for every person whose name is entered in the surveillance register, except conditionally released

convicts.

(2) A history sheet may be opened by or under the written orders of a police officer not below the rank of Inspector for any person not entered the surveillance register who is reasonably believed to be habitually addicted to crime or to be an aider or abettor of such

person.”

(Uploaded on 27/03/2026 at 09:58:32 AM)

(Downloaded on 02/04/2026 at 03:12:45 AM)

(3 of 9) [CRLW-321/2024]

(3) The Government Railway Police will maintain the history sheet of criminals known or suspected to operate on the railway in accordance with Police Rule 4.8. They will open history sheets themselves for criminals living in railway premises, who have been absent from their original homes so long that the railway premises may be regarded as their permanent residence. They may also open history sheets for wandering strangers reasonably believed to be habitually addicted to crime on the railway, whose

original homes cannot be traced.”

6. Rule 4.4 of the Rules of 1965 deals with Surveillance Register No.8, to be maintained in every Police Station in Form

4.4(1), which reads as under :-

“4.4 Surveillance Register No.8 – (1) In every police station, other than those of the railway police, a

Surveillance Register shall be maintained in Form 4.4.(1).

(2) In Part I of suc