IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Writ Petition No. 371 of 2008 Sohan Singh Bhandal ...Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents. None for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Parihar, Advocate for the respondents. Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. Khehar, C.J, (Oral) 1. Case called out repeatedly. None has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. We have examined the pleadings of this case and have also been assisted by the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Case Crime No. 895/92 was registered against the petitioner on 28.9.1992 under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 at Police Station Kashipur, District Nainital (presently District Udham Singh Nagar). Chargesheet No. 381/92 dated 1.11.1992 was filed against the petitioner and six others on the basis of Case Crime No. 895/92. On 8.12.1993, an application was moved by the Public Prosecutor that the petitioner be discharged from the aforesaid case. The order passed by the Designated Judge, Nainital in the matter is being extracted hereunder :- “Sri L.N. Sharma S.P.O. moved an application before this Court on 21.9.1993 for the withdrawal of the present case which arose out of case crime no. 895 of 1992 under sections 147,148,149, 307 and 429 I.P.C. and under section 3/4, 3 (III), 4 (IV) of the TADA of P.S. Kashipur, district Naini Tal on the ground that His Excellency the Governor of U.P. has been pleased to direct the Public Prosecutor to move an application for the withdrawal of case before this Court. The case came up for hearing before this Court today. Sri B.S. Tyagi, Public Prosecutor appeared 2 before this Court today and presented the application moved on behalf of the State by the S.P.O. for the withdrawal of the case. I have heard Sri Dharambir Sharma and Pushpa Joshi Advocates representing the accused persons and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. A perusal of the F.I.R. as also the case diary reveals that on 28.9.1992 at about 1.35 P.M. in village Begmabad, P.S. Kashipur, district Naini Tal, 12 accused persons had formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common objects of the said unlawful assembly they opened fire and shouted slogans of Khalistan Jindabad. It was averred in the F.I.R. that as a result of the firing opened by the accused persons, three buffaloes had died. The accused persons had opened fire upon the police party with an intention to create a terror. It appears that after proper investigation into the matter, the police had submitted charge sheet only as against the following 7 accused persons; 1. Dalip Singh 2. Niranjan Singh 3. Nirmal Singh 4. Sukhdev Singh 5. Sohan Singh 6. Daljit Singh 7. Karnail Singh It appears from letter No. Ya-O-1192/VII- Nyaya-5-93112/2/36/93-C.X dated 6th September 1993 issued by Sri R.D. Shukla, Joint Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Shashan Lucknow that on the motion of the District Magistrate, Naini Tal His Excellency the Governor was pleased to order for the withdrawal of the prosecution. Coming to the facts of the case, I find that no injury to any human being in the occurrence in question was caused. The three buffaloes which are said to have died as a result of the firing made by the accused persons belong to accused Dalip Singh himself. Since the State Government has already been pleased to withdraw the prosecution, I accord consent of the Court and permit the prosecution to withdraw the case. It appears from the records of the case that even a charge has not yet been framed. That being so, it is ordered that the Public Prosecutor be permitted to withdraw the case and the accused 3 persons be discharged. The accused persons are on bail. Their bail bonds are hereby cancelled. ” It is apparent from a perusal of the aforesaid order that His Excellency the Governor of State of Uttar Pradesh was pleased to order the withdrawal of the prosecution against the petitioner. 3. Independently of the factual position depicted in the foregoing paragraph, the petitioner applied for the issuance of a character certificate for purposes of competing for forest contracts. On the request made by the petitioner, an endorsement was recorded by the Sub- Inspector Incharge of Police Outpost Kundeshwari, Police Station Kashipur depicting that a History-Sheet had been opened against the name of the petitioner under Regulation 242 of the U.P. Police Regulations. In order to be able to compete for the forest contracts, the petitioner made a representation dated 31.5.2002 with a prayer that his name should be deleted from the History-Sheet. 4. On 27.2.2008, the petitioner applied for the issuance of a passport in furtherance of an invitation received by him from Canada. The passport sought by the petitioner was not issued to him on account of the fact that his name figured in the History-Sheet. It is, therefore, that the petitioner again moved a representation dated 11.3.2008 with a prayer that his name be removed from the aforesaid History-Sheet. Since, the needful was not done, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present Criminal Writ Petition. 5. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents informed us that there was no other case besides the one referred to in opening paragraph of this order wherein a criminal case was registered against the petitioner. However, even in that case the petitioner 4 came to be discharged from the case, as a consequence of an order passed by His Excellency the Governor of Uttar Pradesh who had ordered the withdrawal of prosecution against the petitioner. It is acknowledged by the learned counsel for the respondents that no other case, at any juncture whatsoever, has been registered against the petitioner. Be that as it may, it is submitted that an order closing the History-Sheet can only be passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police. 6. Keeping in view the factual position depicted hereinabove, we consider it just and appropriate to direct the Senior Superintendent of Police to consider the claim of the petitioner for closing the History-Sheet on the basis of the withdrawal of prosecution in the sole case pending against him reflected in the order passed by the Designated Judge, Nainital (extracted hereinabove). The Senior Superintendent of Police shall also take into consideration any other relevant consideration which may be necessary and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the matter. The Senior Superintendent of Police shall pass an appropriate order within two months from today and communicate the same to the petitioner by serving it on the petitioner. 7. The instant Criminal Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J.) 31.3.2010 Rathour