Mohd. Shameem vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2015 Latest Caselaw 2881 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Court No.40
 
Reserved on 17.09.2015
 
Delivered on 05.10.2015
 

 
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2319 of  2014
 

 

 

 
Mohd. Shameem                                   ..................... Petitioner
 

 

 
Vs.
 

 

 
State of U.P. and others                              ............Respondents
 

 

 

 
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.

Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi,J.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Bala Krisnha Narayana,J.)

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 21.11.2013 passed by respondent no.2 by which history sheet no. 27A of the petitioner opened in the year 2004 was directed to be continued. A further prayer has been made for issuing a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to make domiciliary visit of the petitioner's house at odd hours on account of opening of history sheet no. 27A in the name of the petitioner in the year 2004 in P.S.Dillari, District Moradabad.

It appears that from the perusal of the material brought on record that the petitioner along with another person had earlier filed criminal misc. writ petition no. 18421 of 2010 with a prayer that a suitable direction be issued to respondents to close the history sheet nos. 27 A and 21 A opened in the name of the petitiones in the year 2004 at P.S. Dillari, District Moradabad, which was finally disposed of on 02.01.2013 by following order :-

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for the State.

This petition has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer that a suitable direction may be issued to the respondents to close history sheet nos. 27A and 21A opened in the year 2004 at P.S. Dillari, District Moradabad.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4185 of 2008 for quashing the history sheet and the same was disposed of on 2.12.2008 with the direction that in case the petitioners move application for closing their history sheet, the same shall be disposed of within a period of two months from the date on which the certified copy of the order is filed. In pursuance of the order dated 2.12.2008 the petitioners moved application dated 21.12.2008 before the S.S.P., Moradabad, for closing their history sheet. The same is still pending and has not been disposed of. The petitioners again moved an application on 3.11.2009 before the DIG/SSP, Moradabad, for deciding the application moved by the petitioners bur the same has not been disposed of.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the order dated 2.12.2008 passed by another Bench of this court, we direct that in case the petitioners' application dated 21.12.2008 is pending before the S.S.P., Moradabad, the same shall be heard and disposed of within two months from today by a speaking order.

With the above direction this petition is disposed of."

In compliance of the aforesaid order of this Court, the petitioner moved a representation before the S.S.P., Moradabad/ respondent no.2 dated 21.12.2008 which was decided by him by his order dated 21.11.2013 (Annexure -1), whereby he refused to close the history sheet no. 27 A opened against the petitioner in the year 2004 and directed that the same shall continue.

The petitioner's submission is that since 2004 for two years there was no criminal case lodged against him and he was not found involved in any criminal activities and that under Chapter XX Rule 231 of U.P.Police Regulations, the history sheet ought to have been closed after two consecutive years but just with the purpose to harass the petitioner, police is not closing the history sheet and is harassing the petitioner in the name of surveillance.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the history sheet was opened against the petitioner only on account of his being accused in a solitary case, namely case crime no. 192 of 2003, under Section 396 IPC, P.S. Dillari, District Moradabad. The petitioner was not even named in the FIR and he was acquitted in the aforesaid case by judgement and order dated 19.08.2004 passed in S.T. No. 195 of 2004 and after 19.08.2004 not a single case has been registered against the petitioner even then, the respondent no.2 has by impugned order illegally directed for continuance of the history sheet opened against the petitioner.

The writ petition has been contested on behalf of the State by filing counter affidavit.

We have considered the submissions made before us on either side.

It is not disputed that history sheet of the petitioner was of Class-A and not ''starred'. The relevant provision regarding maintenance of history sheet of Class-A is contained in Chapter XX Rule 231 of the U.P. Police Regulations which is reproduced hereinbelow:

"(231) The subjects of history sheets of class A will unless they are ''starred' remain under surveillance for at least two consecutive year of which they have spent no part in jail. When the subject of a history sheet of class A whose name has not been ''starred' who has never been convicted of cognizable offence and has not been in jail or suspected of any offence or absented himself in suspicious circumstances for two consecutive years his surveillance will be discontinued, unless for special reasons to be recorded in the inspection book of the police station the Superintendent decides that it should continue.

When the subject of a history sheet of class A is ''starred' he will remain starred for at least consecutive years during which he has not been in jail or been suspected of a cognizable offence or had any suspicious absence recorded against him. At the end of that period, if he is believed to have reformed he will cease to be ''starred' but will remain subject to surveillance will be discontinued only if during that period no complaints have been recorded against him.

In closing the history sheets of any ''unstarring' ex-convicts and especially ex-convicts dacoits great care should be exercised."

From the above, it is apparent that surveillance in respect of a person whose history sheet of Class-A has been opened, is to be continued for two consecutive years subject to his not having been in jail for any part of said two years. It is also clear from above that history sheet beyond two years cannot continue except by a special order or unless he has been found to have been convicted in any cognizable offence and has been in jail or was suspected for any offence or absented himself in suspicious circumstances during said two consecutive years.

In this way, history sheet could be continued for two years beyond 2004 and thereafter since no case was registered against the petitioner in the next two consecutive years and he had never been in jail or convicted of any cognizable offence during two years after 2004, the history sheet could not be continued beyond that unless Superintendent decided so, for special reasons to be recorded in the inspection book of the police station.

The intention of the Regulation 231 is not that history sheet should remain open against anyone for all time to come. Once the person maintains good conduct and he is not convicted in any cognizable offence or has been in jail during that period and also he was not suspected of any offence or absented himself in suspicious circumstances for the said two consecutive years, his surveillance is to be dis-continued except under orders of Superintendent on the basis of reason recorded at police station during inspection. No such eventuality has happened or occurred in the case of the petitioner during the said two consecutive years, therefore, history sheet ought to have been closed.

Continuance of history sheet beyond the period as indicated above is wrong and, therefore, petitioner deserves to the relief prayed for.

The writ petition is, therefore, allowed.

A writ of mandamus is accordingly issued directing the Senior Superintendent of Police/ respondent no.2 to discontinue history sheet no. 27-A of the petitioner at P.S. Dillarti, District Moradabad.

Order Date : 05.10.2015

Abhishek Sri/-