Order

DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS 19/03/2026

DATE OF WHICH ORDER IS RESERVED 19/03/2026

FULL ORDER OR OPERATIVE PART Full Order

DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20/04/2026

BY THE COURT:-

1. By way of the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), the petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court seeking quashment of the arbitrary and illegal action of the respondents in initiating history-sheet proceedings against him under the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 and the Rajasthan Habitual Offenders Act, 1953. The petitioner asserts that the impugned action, apart from lacking statutory foundation, unjustly stigmatizes him as a habitual offender and infringes his constitutional rights to dignity, reputation, equality and personal liberty guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

2. The factual matrix, as pleaded, is that respondent No.2, vide communication dated 07.11.2025, addressed a proposal to respondent No.1 alleging that several criminal cases were pending against the petitioner and sought permission for opening a history-sheet against him by portraying him as a habitual offender. It is the specific case of the petitioner that respondent No.1, without undertaking any objective scrutiny regarding the nature of the cases, their present status, the result thereof, or the legal position governing such action, mechanically granted approval on the very same date i.e. 07.11.2025 for initiation of history-sheet proceedings. Hence the instant Misc. Petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that out of eleven criminal cases referred to by the respondents, none has culminated in conviction against the petitioner. It is submitted that eight cases have already resulted in acquittal after full-fledged trial; in one matter, the petitioner stands discharged vide order dated 16.11.2022; in one case, further proceedings remain stayed by order of this Court; and in the remaining case, a Final Report has been proposed/filed.

3.1. In order to substantiate the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the status of all eleven cases relied upon by the respondents. The same are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-

3.2. Learned counsel further submitted that the above tabulation itself demonstrates that the petitioner does not suffer from any adjudicated criminal liability and, therefore, does not answer the description of a habitual offender in the eye of law. Mere registration of cases, many of which have ended in acquittal or otherwise not proceeded further, cannot lawfully constitute the basis for opening a history-sheet.

3.3. It was further argued that Rules 4.4 and 4.9 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 contemplate exercise of such power only upon objective satisfaction founded on cogent material. The competent authority must entertain a reasonable belief that the person concerned is habitually addicted to crime or acts as an aider or abettor in criminal activity. Such satisfaction cannot be founded upon bald allegations, stale accusations, or mere numerical mention of criminal cases irrespective of their outcome.

4. Per contra, learned Dy. Government Advoca