##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:50586]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6973/2026 CNR: RJHC010789092026 | URN: CRLMP / 12210U / 2026 Naresh Prajapat S/o Bansi Lal Kumar, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Lal Bot Choraha, Behind Community Hall, Bedla, District Udaipur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. (Raj.)

2. Superintendent Of Police, Udaipur.

3. Superintendent Of Police, Sirohi.

4. The Station House Officer, Police Station Nai, District Udaipur.

5. The Station House Officer, Police Station Ambamata, District Udaipur

6. The Station House Officer, Police Station Sukher, District Udaipur

7. The Station House Officer, Police Station Pindwara, District Sirohi.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Menaria For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP Mr. Ravindra Singh Bhati HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL

Order

Conclusion of Arguments &

Reserved on : 06/10/2026 Pronounced on : 15/10/2026

1. The present criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashing of the history-sheet opened against him.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the history- sheet of the petitioner was opened vide order dated 01.04.2025 passed by the Superintendent of Police. He contended that, while recommending and approving the opening of the history-sheet, the respondents failed to properly appreciate the nature of the cases registered against the petitioner and their respective outcomes. He pointed out that, out of the ten cases referred to in list with the order, the petitioner had been convicted in only one case, whereas, in the remaining cases, he had either been acquitted, discharged on the basis of compromise, not charge- sheeted, or was facing trial. He argued that the mere registration of criminal cases, without due consideration of their outcome and the nature of the allegations, could not, by itself, furnish sufficient justification for opening a history-sheet against the petitioner.

2.1. He further submitted that the respondents had proceeded in a mechanical and arbitrary manner, without due application of mind to the provisions of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1965’). He contended that the authorities had failed to examine whether the petitioner fulfilled the requisite conditions for being classified as a habitual offender or for the opening of a history-sheet. He argued that such action could not be sustained in the absence of cogent reasons demonstrating the necessity and justification for subjecting the petitioner to police surveillance in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions.

2.3. He also submitted that the respondents had relied upon inconsistent particulars regarding the criminal cases allegedly pending against the petitioner. He pointed out that, at an earlier stage, eight cases were stated to be pending against him, whereas, in a subsequent communication, the number was stated to be ten. He argued that this discrepancy, coupled with the failure to properly consider the status and outcome of the individual cases, demonstrated non-application of mind on the part of the authorities. He maintained that the decision to open the history- sheet had been taken without an objective assessment of the petitioner's conduct and antecedents and was, therefore, arbitrary and unsustainable in law.

2.4. He submitted that the impugned action was contrary to the settled legal position governing the opening of history-sheets and placed reliance upon the judgment dated 04.12.2025 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kaptan Singh v. State of Rajasthan; S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.

1134/2025, in support of his contentions.

2.5. Based on the above submissions, learned counsel prayed that the history-sheet opened ag