1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Writ Petition No. 1108 of 2010 Gajendra Singh S/o Sri Khim Singh R/o Old Govt. House Mallital, Nainital .............….Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Senior Superintendent of Police, Nainital. 2. Station House Officer, Police Station Mallital District Nainital. …................Respondents Shri H.C.Pande, Advocate, present for the writ petitioner. Shri Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder, present for the State. Coram: Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon'ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 2 Oral: Hon'ble Prafulla C.Pant, J. By means of this writ petition moved under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned history sheet No. 11/A of 1997, at police station Mallital, District Nainital. (2) Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavits. (3) Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that against the writ petitioner Gajendra Singh, three criminal cases were registered against him during the period between 1994 and 1997, and in all the three cases, he was acquitted by the trial courts. It is pleaded on behalf of the writ petitioner that neither the petitioner was a habitual offender nor any of the cases registered against him relate to dacoity or robbery or theft etc., as such, the history sheet opened against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. It is also pleaded that for last 13 years without there been even a single case pending against the petitioner, he is subjected to harassment 3 at the hands of the police as the history sheet of class 'A' is opened against him. (4) In the counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents it is admitted that three cases were registered against the petitioner between 1994 and 1997. It is also not denied that in all the three cases, the petitioner was acquitted by the trial courts. However, it is stated in the counter affidavit that as the history sheet No. 11/A of 1997 is opened against the petitioner, he is under surveillance of the police due to that reason. (5) From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents following are the criminal cases found previously registered against the writ petitioner Gajendra Singh :- 1.Crime No. 388 of 1994 relating to offence punishable under section 302/34 I.P.C, police station Kotwali Mallital, Nainital. 2. Crime No. 612 of 1996 relating to offences punishable under section 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., police station Kotwali Mallital, Nainital. 4 3. Crime No. 442 of 1997 relating to offence punishable under section 364 I.P.C., police station Kotwali Mallital, Nainital. Copy of Annexure-1 to the writ petition shows that after the trial, petitioner Gajendra Singh was acquitted vide judgment and order dated 10th of July 1998, passed by Sessions Judge, Nainital in Session Trial No. 230 of 1995, from the charge of offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C., (arisen out of Crime No. 388 of 1994). Second part of Annexure-1 to the affidavit filed with the writ petition shows that the petitioner was acquitted vide judgment and order dated 17.04.1998, by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital, passed in Criminal Case No. 1345 of 1996, from the charge of offences punishable under section 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., (arisen out of Crime No. 612 of 1996). Third part of Annexure-1 to the writ petition shows that the writ petitioner was acquitted from the charge of offence punishable under section 364 I.P.C., vide judgment and order dated 20th of November 1998, passed by Sessions Judge, Nainital in Session Trial No. 333 of 1998, (arisen out of Crime No. 442 of 1997). Admittedly, thereafter no 5 criminal case appears to have been registered against the petitioner for last more than 13 years till now. (6) Regulation 228 of the U.P. Police Regulations contained in chapter XX reads as under:- Part V consists of history sheets. These are the personal records of criminals under surveillance. History-sheets should be opened only for persons who are or likely to become habitual criminal or abettors of such criminals. There will be two classes of history-sheets : (1) Class A history-sheets for dacoits, burglars, cattle-thieves, railway- goods wagon thieves, and abettors thereof. (2) Class B history-sheets for confirmed and professional criminals who commit crimes other than dacoity, burglary, cattle-theft, and theft from railway goods wagons, e.g., professional cheats and other experts for whom criminal personal files are maintained by 6 the Criminal Investigation Department, poisoners, cattle poisoners, railway passenger thieves, bicycle thieves, expert pick- pockets, forgers, coiners, cocaine and opium smugglers, hired ruffians and goondas, telegraph wire- cutters, habitual illicit distillers and abettors therof. History-sheets of both classes will be maintained in similar form, but those for class B will be distinguished by a red bar marked at the top of the first page. No history-sheet of class B maybe converted into a history-sheet of class A, though should be the subject of a history-sheet of class B be found to be also addicted to dacoity, burglary, cattle-theft or theft from railway goods wagons. A class, as well as B class, surveillance may under paragraph 238 be applied to him. In the event of a class A history-sheet man becoming addicted to miscellaneous crime his history-sheet may be converted into a class B history-sheet with the sanction of the Superintendent. 7 From the above para, it is clear that a class A history-sheet which is opened against the present petitioner could have been opened only against the persons who were involved in dacoity, burglary, theft or relating to abetment thereof. None of the cases registered against the petitioner pertain either to dacoity or robbery or burglary, or theft or their abetment. Class B history-sheet couple of more kinds of offences like smuggling of opium, cocaine etc., and forgery etc., are included. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that since the writ petitioner is not involved in any kinds of offences mentioned in Regulation 228, nor is there any other criminal case except the three, already discussed above (in which he was acquitted long back) the petitioner can not be subjected to harassment at the hands of police by keeping him under surveillance for all time to come. (7) Having considered learned counsel for the parties, and after going through the papers on record, in the above circumstances, we are of the view that impugned history-sheet which was opened against the petitioner is liable to be declared illegal. 8 (8) Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, and the criminal history sheet No. 11/A of 1997, at police station Mallital, District Nainital, against the writ petitioner is hereby declared illegal. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 21.04.2011 N.P