IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Writ Petition No. 279 of 2010 (D/B) Raju Bhandari S/o Sri Ram Singh Bhandari R/o Village Amaun, P.S. Khatima, D istrict Udham Singh Nagar. ...…………. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand Through Principal Secretary, Home, Govt. of Uttarakhand, Dehradun. 2. The Sr. Superintendent of Police, Udham Singh Nagar. 3. Station House Officer Police Station Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. ...…………. Respondents Mr. H.C. Pande, Advocate, present for the writ petitioner. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, present for the respondents. Coram : Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Hon. Prafulla C. Pant, J. (oral) By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned history sheet No. 21-A dated 23.10.2001, police 2 station Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, opened against the petitioner. 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavits filed on their behalf. 3) Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that petitioner is a social worker and fights for cases of the weaker sections of the society. It is further pleaded that some criminal cases of trivial nature were registered against the petitioner between the period 1998 to 2001, at police station Khatima, and in all said cases, the petitioner was acquitted by the trial courts. It is stated in the writ petition that a history sheet was opened against the petitioner under Regulation 228 of the U.P. Police Regulations at police station Khatima. It is pleaded by the writ petitioner that he is neither a dacoit, nor a burglar, nor a cattle thief, nor a railway-goods wagon thief, nor abettor thereof. It is further pleaded that after nine years of opening of the criminal history, the same is liable to be closed. Lastly, it is pleaded that the petitioner is suffering harassment and curtailment of his fundamental rights. 4) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in which it is admitted that some cases were registered against the writ petitioner between the years 1998 and 2001. It is further admitted that no 3 criminal case was registered thereafter against the present petitioner. The paragraph in the writ petition that the petitioner is a respectable person and a social worker is not denied in the counter affidavit. 5) On going through the affidavits filed with the writ petition, we find that the petitioner has been acquitted in Criminal Case No. 356 of 1998, relating to offences punishable under Section 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. vide order dated 26.05.1999, by the Judicial Magistrate, Khatima. He has further been acquitted in the Criminal Case No. 1138 of 1998, relating to offences punishable under Section 323, 504, 506, 427, 332, 353 of I.P.C. by the trial court. The third case (Criminal Case No. 384 of 1999) relates to offences punishable under Section 147, 295, 295-A, 298, 504, 506, 447, 153-A of I.P.C., and the Magistrate vide its judgment and order dated 18.08.2007, has acquitted the petitioner. Also, the trial court (Judicial Magistrate, Khatima) has acquitted the petitioner in Criminal Case No. 153 of 1999, which relates to offences punishable under Section 147, 504, 506 of I.P.C. The other three cases are Criminal Case No. 310 of 2000, which relate to offences punishable under Section 147, 452, 294, 506, Criminal Case No. 567 of 2000, relating to offences punishable under Section 323, 504 of I.P.C., and Criminal Case No. 567 of 2000, relating to offences punishable under Section 323, 504 of I.P.C. The petitioner has been acquitted vide order dated 25.05.2007, 25.05.2007, 07.05.2003, 4 and 07.05.2003 respectively, in said cases. The last one relates to Sessions Trial No. 437 of 2001, in which the petitioner has been acquitted vide judgment and order dated 01.12.2006, passed by Sessions Judge, Rudrapur. All these cases are substantially of ‘Maarpeet’. 6) Nature of the criminal cases registered against the writ petitioner Raju Bhandari, in our opinion, are not covered under Regulation 228(1) of the U.P. Police Regulations, which provides for Class A history sheets for dacoits, burglars, cattle-thieves, railway-goods wagon thieves, and abettors thereof. Since the cases registered against the writ petitioner are not covered by the classes of offences mentioned in sub-para (1) of Regulation 228, the history sheet opened against the petitioner is liable to be declared illegal. 7) Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, and the criminal history sheet No. 21-A dated 23.10.2001, police station Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, opened against the writ petitioner is declared illegal. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. November 18, 2010. H. Negi