ORDER Usha Mehra, J.
1. Vijay Singh Vijay Pahalwan has sought removal of his name from Surveillance Register and opening of History Sheet by the SHO, Police Station Vasant Kunj (respondent No.4 herein).
2. The facts of the case are that petitioner had been residing at Village Kishangarh, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of the Police Station Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. He is a wrestler. He participated in various international events in different countries. His father was a Head Constable in Delhi Police. According to petitioner his suffering started when the accomplices and coconspirators in the assassination of his father veilding great influence in the police circle tried to involve the petitioner in false petty criminal cases in the village. Respondent No.4, SHO of Police Station Vasant Kunj filed a report to Deputy Commissioner of Police, SouthWest District regarding the conduct of the petitioner which according to the petitioner, the DCP accepted without verification. He issued a stereotype notice under Section 50 of the Delhi Police Act to the petitioner on 8th January,1998. Seven cases had been mentioned in the said notice showing the involvement of the petitioner. Petitioner was acquitted in most of the cases mentioned in the said notice. In some of the FIRs the complaint was the same and in one case no challan had been filed against him. Petitioner contested the notice. However, externment order was passed against him. The challenge made by him brought no fruitful results. In the present petition he is not challenging the externment order passed against him but has restricted his relief only with regard to the opening of the History Sheet against him.
3. On 10th February,1998 when he went to the Police Station Vasant Kunj he was informed that he had been declared Bad Character of the area and that he was going to be involved in false cases of murder. He, therefore, filed this writ petition challenging the opening of the History Sheet and entering his name in the Surveillance Registered maintained at Police Station Vasant Kunj under Rule 23.4 of the Punjab Police Rules,1934 as applicable to Delhi (hereinafter called the Rules).
4. Before dealing with the objection raised by counsel for the petitioner to the opening of history sheets, lets have quick glance to the relevant rule. Rule 23.4 is reproduced as under :-
Rule 23.4 - (1) In every police station other than those of the railway police, a Surveillance Register shall be maintained in Form 23.4(1). (2) In Part I of such register shall be entered the names of persons commonly resident within or commonly frequenting the local jurisdiction of the police station concerned, who belong to one or more of the following classes:- (a) All persons who have been proclaimed under Section 87, Code of Criminal Procedure. (b) all released convicts in regard to whom an order under Section 565, Criminal Procedure Code, has been made. (c) All convicts the execution of whose sentence is suspended in the whole, or any part of whose punishment has been remitted conditionally under Section 401, Criminal Procedure Code. (d) All persons restricted under rules of Government made under Section 16 of the Restriction of Habitual Offenders (Punjab) Act,1918. (3) In Part II of such register may be entered at the discretion of the Superintendent- (a) persons who have been convicted twice, or more than twice, of offences mentioned in rule 27.29. (b) persons who are reasonably believed to be habitual offenders or receivers of stolen property whet hers they have been convicted or not; (c) persons under security under sections 109 or 110, Code of Criminal Procedure; (d) convicts released before the expiration of their sentences under the Prisons Act and Remission Rules without the imposition of any conditions.
5. Reading of the above rule shows that there has to be two parts of such register. Mr.R.P.Lao, counsel for the petitioner contended that case of the petitioner could not be covered under PartI of the Register because he has not been declared as Proclaimed Offender nor a released convict, nor his sentence was suspended because of his remittance nor his case is covered under Habitual Offenders (Punjab) Act,1918. As regards Part II of Rule 23.4, if the name of the petitioner was to be entered into Surveillance Register, approval of the Superintendent of Police, in the present case Deputy Commissioner of Police was a must. The SHO could not have entered his name in the Surveillance Register. Even otherwise his case cannot be covered under Part II of the Surveillance Register because he was neither the receiver of stolen property nor connected with the offence which could categorise him as Bad Character. Before entering the name of a person in the Surveillance Register, History Sheet has to be opened and that could only be opened if his case is covered under Part-I of the Register. Since the petitioner was never convicted nor placed under scrutiny for good behaviour, his History Sheet could not have been opened. Entering of his name in the Surveillance Register without first applying the provision of Part-I of the Rule i.e. of opening the History Sheet is violative of the rules. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.
6. Countering this argument Ms.Mukta Gupta, counsel for the State contended that order to enter the name of the petitioner in the register was passed by the D.C.P. She produced original file before us to show that the sanction for opening the History Sheet and for entering the name of the petitioner in Surveillance Register, was accorded by the Deputy Commissioner of Police on 22nd April,1996. Vide the said order the D.C.P. directed for the maintenance of petitioner's History Sheet and his name be kept in Register No.10(2) and History Sheet be placed in Bundle 'A'. Hence provisions of Rule 23.4 of the Rules stood complied with.
7. So far as the preliminary objection raised by Mr.R.P.Lao that History Sheet was opened by the SHO, in view of our above observation and scrutiny of the original record we find no substance in the argument of Mr.R.P.Lao. Perusal of order dated 22nd April,1996 shows that the Deputy Commissioner of Police took into consideration all the facts available on record and after perusing the same he accorded the sanction. Therefore,it cannot be said that he did not apply his mind before according sanction to open the History Sheet and keeping his name in the Surveillance Register. As regards contention of Mr.Lao that the case of the petitioner is not covered under Rule 23.4 of the Rules, we find no substance in the same. As on the date the impugned order was passed, the petitioner was facing trial in six cases and subsequent thereto few more cases have been registered against him. Because of his criminal activities the externment order was also passed against him. Even during externment proceedings he was found to be involved in cases under Section 307, 452/34/120-B IPC of Police Station Hauz Khas. This shows that the activities of the petitioner were such that required constant vigilance. In the words of Mr.P.K.Bhardwaj, Deputy Commissioner of Police, "He is a desperate and dangerous person and his activities are likely to cause alarm and harm to the persons at large." Therefore, taking these material facts into consideration the Deputy Commissioner of Police accorded the sanction and passed the order of opening the History Sheet of the petitioner and then ordered to enter his name in the Surveillance Register. To our mind, the provisions of Rule 23.4 of the Punjab Police rules,1934 as applicable to Delhi have been duly complied with. In view of his criminal activities as pointed out by Mr.P.K.Bhardwaj, Deputy Commissioner of Police in his counter affidavit, it cannot be said that case of the petitioner is not covered under the provisions of Rule 23.4 of the Punjab Police Rules,1934. Rule 23.4 (3) which deals with Par II of such Register, as quoted above, clearly shows that a person who is reasonably believed to be habitual offender whether convicted or not his name can be entered, at the discretion of the Superintendent, in the Register. It is the case of the State that he is a habitual offender that is why externment order was passed against him which attained finality because it was not set aside. This is a clear pointer to the fact that he was a habitual offender. Therefore, History Sheet was opened and his name was entered into the Surveillance Register.
8. For the reasons stated above, we find no merit in the petition nor any ground to quash the impugned order. The petition is accordingly dismissed.