1 S. B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.1618/2006 HARSUKH RAM V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS. DATE OF ORDER ::: 24/11/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. M. TOTLA Mr. Mahesh Bora, for Petitioner (s). Mr. O.P.Rathi, PP, for the Respondents. For petitioner, under Rule 4.8 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965, a history sheet is opened. Petitioner requests striking out his name from the history sheet Police Station, Pokran, District Jaisalmer and also from the surveillance register. According to the petition, (1) petitioner is a law abiding resident of village Khetolai, (2) due to some property dispute relating to petitioner lodged certain criminal cases were instituted against him, (3) acquitted in all, except one which is pending for the offences of Section 323 & 341, IPC. (4) Two FIRs 150/01 & 151/01 registered in 2001, resulted in negative police report and order of learned Magistrate, taking cognizance, is under-challenge by way of revision and stay for cognizance order dated 17.11.03. (5) For the two cases initiated in the year, 1989, petitioner acquitted on the basis of compromise. (6) For FIR No.111/02, no challan filed. (7) FIR of March, 92 alleges cement theft because truck belonged to petitioner – for the same incident, case registered in June, 2000 at Police Station, Phalodi, resulted in acquittal. (7) Out of total 8 cases, so lodged, now only one is pending and (8) no conviction in any case. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that (1) petitioner is not a habitual criminal – cannot be deemed to be so under any provision or rule. (2) Petitioner is in Government service and Headmaster of school. (3) Under rule 4.4, only persons who are convicted for two or more cases, can be kept in surveillance. (4) Only after opening history sheet, can be under surveillance and opening of history is against rules. On behalf of the petitioner argued that petitioner is not convicted in any case and filing of any proceedings under Section 107 or 110 of Cr.P.C., does 2 not prove that petitioner is a habitual criminal. Also argued that such opening of history sheet and continuing so, is hampering and curtailing the liberty of petitioner which is not permissible in absence of any conviction. Vehemently argued that some cases, as above, were very old one - of very trivial nature – acquitted in all – so opening history sheet is abuse of authority. Also submitted that making history sheet may adversely affect the petitioner's employment and as per provisions of Rajasthan Police Rules also , opening of history sheet wholly warranted. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that for petitioner so far 10 criminal cases are lodged, of which (1) in the year, 1989, two FIRs No.10/89 for the offences under Sections 394, 447, and 323, IPC and 74/89 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323 and 341, IPC – in April, 1990, acquittal on account of compromise. (2) In the year, 1992, two FIRs No.28/92 for the offences under Sections 379 and 411, IPC and No.38/92 for the offences under Sections 406 and 407, IPC, registered – acquitted in the year, 2000. (3) In the year, 2001, two FIRs - No.150/01 for the offences under Sections 143, 323 and 342, IPC and No. 151/01 for the offences under Sections 143, 323 and 341, IPC, registered – resulted in negative police report FR. (4) In 2002, FIR No.111/02 for the offences under Sections 143, 323 and 341, IPC, registered – resulted in negative police report. (5) In 2006, FIR No.106/06 for the offences under Sections 323 and 341, IPC, registered and challan filed – is pending trial. (6) In the year, 2007 too, two FIRs No.50/07 for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468A, 120B and 409, IPC, registered - pending investigation and FIR No. 51/07 for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 471 and 120B, IPC, also – pending investigation. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that in the year, 2006, on complaints of two different persons proceedings under Sections 106 and 116 (4), Cr.P.C., initiated against the petitioner - on a complaint of a woman in November, 06, proceedings under Sections 107 and 116 (3), Cr.P.C., initiated against the petitioner which is pending – proceedings under Section 110, Cr.P.C., initiated in July, 06 and petitioner bound down for six months. Submitted 3 that of the five cases, in which challan was filed, three relates to physical assault and two relates to theft like of which one is pending. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that to keep watch on such persons, history sheet is opened and in the case of the petitioner, on the complaint of villagers of village Khetolai made to the Inspector General of Police, the S.P. vide letter dated 27.7.06 has directed for opening of the history sheet and order is on the basis of conduct of the petitioner. Rule 4.4 and 4.5 of the Rajasthan Police Service Rules, 1965 provides for entries in the surveillance register. For the persons falling in any of the categories, described in rule 4.4, can be entry in surveillance register. In the case of the petitioner, as above, he is not convicted in any case. For proceedings under Section 110, Cr.P.C., also, only a show-cause notice for petitioner is. Any activity, alleged for the petitioner, as above, hardly comes in any described category. Pre-requisites for opening history sheet is as per rule 4.9. For a person, whose name is in the surveillance register, can be opened a history sheet. Also for the person, who is reasonably to be believed to be habitual addicted to crime or an aider or abettor of persons committing such crime, can also be opened history sheet. As mentioned above, no conviction for petitioner is. Only one case for the offences of Sections 323 and 341, IPC, is pending trial. With these facts and allegations, it hardly can be reasonably believed that the petitioner is habitually addicted or indulges in such activities, as such opening of history sheet for petitioner, being without reasonable basis, is not sustainable. So accepting petition, opening of history sheet and order of opening of history sheet against the petitioner and also entry in surveillance register at Police Station, Pokran, District Jaisalmer is struck down. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. scd (C. M. TOTLA), J.