Opening a 'History-Sheet' Based on a Single Acquitted Case is an Arbitrary and Mechanical Exercise: Allahabad High Court - 2025-09-16

Opening History-Sheet Cannot Be a Mechanical Exercise, Must Be Backed by Reasoned Satisfaction: Allahabad High Court

---

LUCKNOW: The Allahabad High Court has strongly asserted that opening a 'history-sheet' against an individual cannot be a mechanical exercise and must be based on the subjective satisfaction of the competent authority, supported by credible material and a well-reasoned decision. The court stressed that bracketing a person as a habitual criminal based on a single, old case that resulted in acquittal is arbitrary and impermissible under law.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi made these observations while hearing a writ petition filed by Rama Shankar, a street vendor, seeking to quash a history-sheet opened against him by the Malipur Police in Ambedkar Nagar.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Rama Shankar, argued that the police had wrongly listed him as a history-sheeter, causing immense harassment to him and his family. He contended that he was falsely implicated in only one criminal case in 2008, under IPC sections for theft and the U.P. Gangsters Act, in which he was honorably acquitted by the trial court in April 2022.

Through applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the petitioner confirmed that no other criminal case was pending against him in any police station within the district. Despite this, the local police had pasted his name and photograph on the history-sheeters' list at the station.

Arguments from Both Sides

The petitioner's counsel argued that the police action was a blatant misuse of power and a violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. It was submitted that the police had failed to adhere to the mandatory provisions of Regulations 228 and 240 of the U.P. Police Regulations, which require a person to be a habitual criminal or an abettor for a history-sheet to be opened.

Conversely, the State's counsel, based on police instructions, claimed the petitioner was a "daring terrorist" and a "person dangerous to the society." It was stated that the history-sheet was opened in 2010 based on his past criminal history and that such a sheet could be opened even after an acquittal, as per Regulation 240.

Court's Legal Analysis and Precedents

The High Court conducted a thorough analysis of the U.P. Police Regulations and relevant judicial precedents. The Bench highlighted that Regulation 228 explicitly states that history-sheets should be opened only for persons who are or are likely to become "habitual criminals."

Citing the Supreme Court's definition of "habitual" in Vijay Narain Singh versus State of Bihar , the court observed:

"The expression 'habitually' means 'repeatedly' or 'persistently'. It implies a thread of continuity stringing together similar repetitive acts... A single act or omission... cannot therefore be characterised as a habitual act or omission."

The court found that a solitary case from 2008, which ended in acquittal, could not be the basis for classifying the petitioner as a habitual criminal. It criticized the police instructions for making serious allegations without any supporting material and for failing to show that the mandatory order from the Superintendent of Police, required under Regulation 240 , was ever passed.

The Bench also referenced the recent Supreme Court judgment in Amanatullah Khan versus The Commissioner of Police, Delhi (2024), which cautioned against the mechanical opening of history-sheets, particularly against individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds, and called for a periodic audit mechanism.

Pivotal Observations from the Judgment

The court made several critical observations on the misuse of police power:

"Keeping in a view the facts, circumstances, legal provisions and the above-noted case laws, we are of the considered opinion that the opening of the 'History-sheet' of any person should not be a mechanical exercise, rather the same should be careful, proper and thorough as it is directly connected with the Article 21 of the Constitution of India."

"Opening of 'History-sheet' must be on the basis of subjective satisfaction of the competent authority, and the subjective satisfaction must be armed with legal provisions vis-a-vis well reasoned and speaking decision, failing which it would be hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India being arbitrary in nature and not permissible in law."

The court noted that the police record failed to indicate any 'subjective satisfaction' or 'reasonable belief' by the Superintendent of Police that the petitioner was a confirmed or professional criminal.

Final Decision and Directions

Instead of directly quashing the history-sheet, the High Court directed the petitioner to file a fresh, comprehensive representation before the Superintendent of Police (SP), Ambedkar Nagar, within two weeks.

The SP has been ordered to consider the representation in light of the court's observations and pass a reasoned and speaking order within three weeks, strictly in accordance with the U.P. Police Regulations. The court further directed that in the interim, the petitioner should not be subjected to any unnecessary harassment by the police.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of with these directions.