The opening of a history sheet requires the competent authority's subjective satisfaction, supported by reasonable grounds that a person is a habitual offender. Arbitrarily opening a history sheet based solely on a list of criminal cases without a reasoned, speaking order violates the principles of natural justice and Article 21 of the Constitution.

Order

02/04/2026

1. By way of filing the instant criminal writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 08.06.2018 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Alwar by which orders have been passed to open history sheet against the petitioner under Rule 4.9 (2) of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 (for short “the Rules of 1965”).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in all, seven criminal cases, i.e., FIR Nos.15/2001, 99/2004, 170/2009, 133/2012 & 110/2017 were registered against the petitioner with the Police Station Thanagazi. While in FIR No.139/2006, registered with the Police Station Malakhera and FIR No.184/2018, registered with the Police Station Kotwali Alwar. Counsel submits that in the Criminal Case No.139/2006, registered with the Police Station Malakhera, wherein after trial, the petitioner was found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 341 & 427 IPC by the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alwar vide judgment dated 31.10.2020. However, benefit of probation under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 was granted to the petitioner while one criminal case, i.e., FIR No.184/2018, registered with the Police Station Kotwali, Alwar under Section 384 & 385 IPC is still pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alwar.

3. Counsel submits that the instant case of the petitioner does not fall within the parameters of law for declaring him as history-sheeter. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Kaptan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. while deciding S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1134/2025 vide order dated 04.12.2025. Counsel submits that in view of the submissions made hereinabove, the impugned order dated 08.06.2018 may be quashed and set-aside.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer, but he is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner.

5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record.

6. 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 in the surveillance registered who is reasonably believed to be habitually addicted to crime or to be an aider or abettor such persons.”

(3) The Government Railway Police will maintain the history sheets 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.”

7. 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), and the same 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).