Allahabad High Court
Rama Shankar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 29 August, 2025
Author: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:51235-DB
A.F.R.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7463 of 2025
Rama Shankar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Ramesh Chandra Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 9
HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J. (Per: Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, J.)
1. Heard Sri Ramesh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.D. Bhatt, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State/opposite parties and perused the record.
2. In view of the controversy involved in this case, this Court with the consent of the parties proceeds to dispose of the same without inviting counter affidavit.
3. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari seeking quashment of the History-sheet of the petitioner, if any, after summoning the same from its original.
4. The case of the petitioner is that he obtained information under the Right to Information Act that almost from all the police stations of the District- Ambedkar Nagar, no criminal case is lying against the petitioner but the Station House Officer, Police Station- Malipur, District- Ambedkar Nagar (respondent no.3) has published the name of the petitioner as History-sheeter in the list and has pasted the same at the police station.
5. It is pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that the third respondent is unnecessarily harassing the petitioner in one way or the other and not only the petitioner has been harassed, his entire family has been made to harassment causing unbearable disturbance in the life of the petitioner and his entire family and they are living under fear and threat perceptions. The petitioner has also filed a copy of the representation dated 17.07.2025 as contained in annexure no.9 to the writ petition, whereby the petitioner made request to the opposite party no.2/Superintendent of Police, District- Ambedkar Nagar to close the History-sheet in view of the fact that no criminal case against the petitioner was pending till filing of the instant writ petition.
6. The epitome of facts which needs to be mentioned for the purpose of deciding the controversy involved in the present writ petition and emanating from the material available before this Court is that the petitioner is resident of Village Rasoolpur Bakarganj, Police Station- Malipur, District- Ambedkar Nagar and earns the livelihood for himself and his family by setting up Cart of ?Batasha, Tikki and Chowmin?. It has been pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that he was falsely implicated in Case Crime No. 1125 of 2008, under Section 379/411 I.P.C. & Section 3(1) of The U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station- Kotwali Ayodhya, District- Faizabad. The learned trial court held the trial and finally acquitted the petitioner vide the judgment and order dated 06.04.2022 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Gangster Act), Court No.5, Faizabad. For ready reference, the aforesaid order is quoted herein-below:
?????
????? ??????? ??????? (????????) ?????? 80/2009 ??????? ?????? ????? ?????? 1125/2008 ???? ??? ??????? ???? ??????? ??????? ??? ???????? ??? ???? ??????? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ??????? ???? 379.411 ??????? ??? ???? 3(1) ?????? ???????? ??? ???? ?????? ?????????? ?????? ??????? 1986 ?? ????? ?? ????? ??? ???????? ???? ???? ??? ?????????? ????? ?? ?? ???? ?????????? ? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????????? ?? ???? ???????? ?? ???????? ???? ???? ??? ???????? ?????? ???? 437? ???????? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ????? ?? ????????? ??? ???? ? ??? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??????? ??????
7. The allegation as levelled by the petitioner in paragraph no.8 of the writ petition is that all of sudden the local police of the Police Station- Malipur, District-Ambedkar Nagar started harassing the petitioner without assigning any reason and informed him that the proceedings as history-sheeter is going on against him. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that on coming to know that the name of the petitioner has been mentioned in the list of history-sheeters and his photograph has also been pasted at the Police Station- Malipur, District- Ambedkar Nagar, he made an application under the Right to Information Act seeking information regarding the status of registered cases, if any, in the respective police stations, the details whereof has been mentioned by the petitioner in paragraph no.10 of the writ petition, which is quoted hereinunder:
Information
Circle
Police Stations
13.3.2025
Alapur
Alapur, Jahangirganj, Rajesultanpur
17.3.2025
Jalalpur
Jalalpur, Jaitpur, Malipur and Katka
23.3.2025
Bhiti
Bhiti, Ahirauli, Mahraua and Mahila Thana
27.3.2025
-
Kotwali, Akbarpur, Baskhari, Sammanpur, Bewana
March 2025
-
Kotwali Tanda, Ibrahimpur, Hanswar, Aliganj
8. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that on moving the application dated 09.04.2025 under the Right to Information Act, he was informed on 24.04.2025 by the Public Information Officer/Circle Officer, Jalalpur, District- Ambedkar Nagar that no proceeding of history-sheet has been done against the petitioner by the Police Stations namely Jalalpur, Jaitpur and Katka, falling under Circle Jalalpur. However, proceeding has been done by the Police Station- Malipur, District- Ambedkar Nagar. Further, the Circle Officer, Tanda, District- Ambedkar Nagar vide letter dated 03.05.2025 also furnished information to the Public Relation Officer/Nodal Officer, Additional Police Commissioner, West, District- Ambedkar Nagar that no proceeding of History-sheet has been done by the Police Stations- Kotwali, Tanda, Ibrahimpur, Hanswar and Aliganj. Similar pieces of information were also provided by the Circle Officer, Bhiti, District- Ambedkar Nagar that no such proceeding against the petitioner has been done by the Police Stations- Bhiti, Ahirauli, Maharua and Mahila Thana.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to a letter written by the Assistant Information Officer/Circle Officer, Ambedkar Nagar addressed to the Public Information Officer/Nodal Officer that no criminal case against the petitioner is found registered in any of the police stations falling under the concerned circle. It is also stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the basis of the aforesaid definite information received from the concerned police stations and in the teeth of the fact that the only criminal case which was registered against the petitioner way back in the year 2008 bearing Case Crime No. 1125 of 2008, under Section 379/411 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) of The U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. Kotwali Ayodhya, District- Faizabad, has already been concluded wherein the petitioner has been acquitted vide the judgment and order dated 06.04.2022 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Gangster Act), Court No.5, Faizabad, against which no appeal was ever filed to the best of his information; the proceedings under Regulation 228 of the U.P. Police Regulations is totally arbitrary, illegal and unwarranted, as such the same is liable to be closed and the petitioner and his family may not be put to any harassment under the garb of such unwarranted proceeding.
10. It has been very emphatically argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the action on the part of the opposite parties bracketing the petitioner as History-sheeter despite having been acquitted in the only case as detailed herein-above and also when no case is pending in any of the police stations; suffers from the vice of non-application of mind and reflects the biased attitude of the opposite parties for the reason best known to them or may be at the instance of some persons inimical to the petitioner or due to some personal grudge. He further submits that the action of the concerned police authorities is in utter disregard to the mandatory provisions of Regulation(s) 228 and 240 of the U.P. Police Regulations, which require prior verification of facts and recording of its satisfaction before declaring anyone as History-sheeter.
11. It has been vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was falsely implicated in only one criminal case as detailed in the preceding paragraphs in which he has been acquitted and no appeal against the acquittal has ever been preferred by the opposite parties. Even then, the petitioner has been put to unbearable harassment without just or legal cause, causing violation of petitioner?s Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The contention of the learned counsel is that the basic requirement for opening History-sheet is that the person(s) must be of such kind that either they are or like to become habitual criminal or abettors of such criminals. He very categorically submitted that there is no material on record to show that the petitioner has ever posed any danger to law and order or public peace or in any manner falls within Class A and Class B as classified in Regulation 228 of the U.P. Police Regulations.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also stated that the petitioner?s representation dated 17.07.2025 made before the second respondent/Superintendent of Police, District- Amebedkar Nagar has not been given any consideration till date, causing irreparable loss and injury to the petitioner.
13. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State-opposite parties on the basis of the instructions dated 13/14.08.2025 provided by the Sub Inspector, Police Station- Malipur, District- Ambedkar Nagar, submitted that the petitioner does not have a good image in the society and carries reputation of ?daring terrorist (?????????? ????????)? and a person dangerous to the society and as such taking into consideration the previous criminal history of the petitioner, History-sheet No. 67A dated 16.03.2010 has been opened in accordance with Regulation 240 of the U.P. Police Regulations. The relevant portion of the said instructions as placed by the learned A.G.A. before this Court is extracted herein-below:
?1. ?? ?? ??????? ??????????? / ???????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ??????? ???????, ???? ???????, ???? ??????????? ?? ???????????? ? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ??????? ?????? ??? ?????????? ???????? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ?????? ??????? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ?? ??????? ??? ????????/???? ?????? ????? ????? ????????? ?? ???????? ?????? ??????? ?? ??????? ?????? ???
2. ?? ?? ???????????/???????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ??????? ???????, ???? ???????, ???? ??????????? ?? ??????? ?????????? ?????? ??????? ??:
1. ????????-1125/2008 ???? 379/411 ????????? ? ???? 3(1) ?????? ????? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ??????? 1986 ???? ??????? ???????, ???? ??????? ??? ??????? ???? ????????????? ????? ???? ???? ??????? ?????? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ???????? ?? ?????????? ???????? ???? ?? ???? ???
3. ?? ?? ???????????/???????? ??????? ??????? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ??? ?? ?? ?? ????????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ????????? ????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????????/???? ????? ???? ??? ????????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ? ????? ????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ??????? ???? ???? ??? ???????? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?? ???? ??????? ???? ??? ???????? ?? ??????? ??? ????? ???? ?? ????? ??? ???? ??? ????/????????? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ????? ?? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ????? ??????? ?????? ?? ?????????? ???????? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ?????? ??????? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ?? ??????? ??, ????? ??????? ?????? ????? ???? ???
4. ?? ?? ????/???????? ?? ??????? ?????? ??? ?????????? ???????? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ?????? ??????? ???? ?? ??? ????? ??????? ???? ??????? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ????/???????? ?? ????? ??????? ?????? ??? ??????? ?? ??????? ?????????? ?? ???????? ???? ??? ???????? ?? ??????? ??????????? ??????-67? ?????? 16.03.2010 ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ???????? ?? ???? 240 ?? ?????? ???????? ?? ???????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ????
5. ?? ?? ???????????/???????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ??????? ???????, ???? ???????, ???? ??????????? ???? ?? ???????????? ?? ????? ???-??? ?? ???? ??????? ?? ????? ?????? ???-??? ?? ??????? / ??????? ???? ????/???????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ??? ?? ????/???????? ?? ??????? ?? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???????, ???? ??????????? ?????? ????/???????? ? ???? ?????? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ????/???????? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???????????? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ???????? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ?????????????? ?? ????? / ????????? ?? ???? ??? ????????? ???? ???? ?????? ?????
14. Confronting the aforesaid allegation as levelled by the learned A.G.A. on the basis of the instructions received from the Sub Inspector, P.S.- Malipur, District- Ambedkar Nagar, learned counsel for the petitioner very emphatically asserted that the same are totally baseless, purported and malicious. He submitted that in the absence of any proof or material on record, the aforesaid allegations made against the petitioner are highly deplorable and cannot be given any legal weightage to proceed against the petitioner in any manner, whatsoever. Further, the said instructions from the concerned police stations reflect the vindictive attitude of the local police against the petitioner which cannot be allowed under the law to give colour of a legal proceeding.
15. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available before this Court.
16. Before arriving at a definite conclusion that in the instant case whether the opening of the History-sheet by the concerned police authority on the basis of one case which was registered way back in the year 2008 and finally decided in favour the petitioner acquitting him vide the aforesaid judgment and order dated 06.04.2022 is justified under law without assigning any cogent reason in the light of Regulation(s) 228 & 240 of the U.P. Police Regulations; it would be appropriate to go through the provisions of Regulation 228 & 240 of the U.P. Police Regulations. For convenience, the relevant extract of the same is quoted herein-below:
?228. 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 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 thereof.
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 may be 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.
??????????.
240. History-sheets of both classes may be opened (1) on suspicion or (2) on conviction or acquittal. No history-sheet may be opened without the orders of the Superintendent of Police.
(1) On suspicion- Whenever as a result of investigation into a case of dacoity, burglary, cattle theft from railway goods wagons or into a case of miscellaneous crime of a professional type, the officer-in-charge of a police station applies for the name of any person to be entered in the crime register as reasonably suspected, he must at the same time report whether the suspect is under surveillance, and if not, whether a history-sheet should in his opinion be opened for him. Should the gazetted officer-in-charge of a subdivision on receiving such a report and after such further inquiry as he may think necessary consider that a history-sheet is required he will forward the report to the Superintendent who if he accepts the proposal will define the class of history-sheet to be opened and pass orders as to whether the suspect should be 'starred'. Similarly whenever an officer-in-charge of a police station finds reason to believe, otherwise than in the course of an investigation, that any resident of his circle is addicted to crime, or whenever a gazetted officer or Circle inspector for any reason believes that a history-sheet for any person is necessary a report must be submitted to the Superintendent, who will pass orders on it as laid down above.
(2) On conviction or acquittal Whenever any person is sent for trial on a charge of dacoity, burglary, cattle theft or theft from a railway goods wagons or of miscellaneous crime of a professional type, the officer-in-charge of the police station must state in his diary whether the accused has a history-sheet and if not, whether he recommends that a history sheet should be opened for him. It will be the duty of the public prosecutor, if the accused is acquitted to inform the Superintendent, in his report on the acquittal or otherwise, whether in his opinion a history-sheet is required. On this the Superintendent will pass any orders to the station officer that may be necessary. If the accused is convicted, the public prosecutor must, in the remarks column of the daily report of convictions and acquittals (Form No. 107) enter in red ink the words. 'On H.S.' if a history-sheet is already open, or the letters 'H.S.' if he recommends that one should be prepared. In either case he must prepare and attach to the daily report of convictions and acquittals a P.R. slip (Form No. 313). If a history-sheet is already open or if the Superintendent agrees that a history-sheet should be opened he will sign this P.R. slip and initial the letters 'H.S. or 'On H.S.' on the daily report of convictions and acquittals. The public prosecutor will then communicate the Superintendent's orders for the opening of a history sheet to the police station concerned and will forward the P.R. slip to the Superintendent of Jail. If no history-sheet is opened and if the Superintendent does not agree that one should be prepared, he will not sign the P.R. slip. which will be cancelled.
If the accused is a resident of another district or State or has been sent for trial by the railway police, the same procedure will be followed except that the Superintendent of Police will not order a history-sheet to be opened. If the accused is convicted and the Superintendent considers a history-sheet to be desirable the P.R. slip will be signed and sent to the Superintendent of the Jail and the Superintendent of Jail shall furnish the Superintendent of Police with a receipt for the P.R. slip. In column 10 Form No. 148 (conviction roll) the public prosecutor will note in red ink that this has been done and in column 15 of the same form a note will be made recommending that a history-sheet should be opened: Any conviction roll on which a recommendation for the opening of history-sheet has been made must on receipt in the district of the convict's residence be put up before the Superintendent of Police of that district who will decide whether a history-sheet should be opened or not, and will address the Superintendent of the Jail regarding the cancellation of the P.R. slip if he does not agree that a history-sheet is necessary. Notwithstanding anything in the above, the Superintendent of Police of any district in Uttar Pradesh shall subject to the final decision of the Deputy Inspector-General of the Range, to whom any question of disagreement must be referred, be bound to open a history-sheet at the request of the Superintendent of Government Railway Police for any person resident who is suspected or convicted of crime on the railway. The Superintendent, Railway Police should specify the kind of surveillance required in each case.
In the case of persons, sent for trial by the Railway police, in which the Superintendent considers a history-sheet desirable, the public prosecutor will send Form No. 143 (conviction roll) endorsed, as directed above, to the Superintendent of the man's district, through the Superintendent, Railway Police.
The Superintendent, Railway Police, in forwarding Form No. 148 to the Superintendent of the district concerned will state whether he considers a history-sheet necessary. If not, he will request the Superintendent of the Jail to cancel the P.R. slip.?
17. Regulation 228 of the U.P. Police Regulations provides that the History-sheets should be opened only for the persons who are or likely to become habitual criminal or abettors of such criminals.
(emphasis supplied)
18. It is also provided that there will be two classes of History-sheets namely Class A and Class B. The process to start a History-sheet of a criminal arises from the stage that a particular person is considered or thought to be a confirmed or professional criminal for which there should be some basis or material and in case of complete absence of such material, the action in starting a History-sheet will be illegal and without jurisdiction. From perusal of Regulation 228 of the U.P. Police Regulations, it is explicit that the History-sheets can be opened only for the persons who are or likely to become habitual criminal or abettors of such criminals. The word ?Only? used in the said Regulation reflects the scope of Regulation 228 of the Regulations only, meaning thereby that the History-sheets can be opened either for the persons who are or likely to become ?habitual criminal? or ?abettors of such criminals?. The expression ?Habitual Criminal? has been categorically interpreted by the Hon?ble Apex Court in the Case of Vijay Narain Singh versus State of Bihar, reported in (1984) 3 SCC 14, AIR 1984 SC 1334. Speaking for the majority, His Lordship, Hon?ble E.S. Venkataramaiah, J. held:
?The expression 'habitually' means 'repeatedly' or 'persistently'. It implies a thread of continuity stringing together similar repetitive acts. Repeated, persistent and similar, but not isolated, individual and dissimilar acts are necessary to justify an inference of habit. ..........A single act or omission ......cannot therefore be characterised as a habitual act or omission ........Because the idea of 'habit' involves an element of persistence and tendency to repeat the acts or omissions of the same class or kind, if the acts or omissions in question are not of the same kind or even if they are of the same kind when they are committed with a long interval of time between them they cannot be treated as habitual ones.?
19. Canvassing the facts of the present case, in the light of the explanation given by the Hon?ble Supreme Court to the expression ?Habitual?, we find that there was only a solitary case having Case Crime No. 1125 of 2008 that resulted into acquittal in the year 2022 and there is no other criminal case or complaint found registered against the petitioner before the police station or the court concerned to indicate any criminal history. As such, this Court fails to comprehend any thread of continuity stringing together similar repetitive acts and as such there appears to be no basis to presume that the person is a confirmed or professional criminal. Further, the allegations levelled in the instructions dated 13/14.08.2025 as quoted herein-above also does not disclose the basis of the allegations or any reference of any case to establish such serious allegations as are made against the petitioner. As per the said instructions, the History-sheet No. 67A dated 16.03.2010 was opened against the petitioner on the basis of his past criminal history and the present criminal activities, in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 240 of the U.P. Police Regulations. Regulation 240 of the U.P. Police Regulations provides that the History-sheets may be opened in the following two situations, subject to the order of the Superintendent of Police:
1. On Suspicion
2. On Conviction or Acquittal
20. It goes without saying that no History-sheet can be opened without the orders of Superintendent of Police. In the first situation that is ?On Suspicion?, the Officer-in-charge of the police station applies for the name of any person to be entered in the crime register as reasonably suspected and at the same time shall submit its report as to whether the suspect is under surveillance, and if not, whether a history-sheet should in his opinion be opened for him. The gazetted officer-in-charge of the sub-division on receiving such a report and after such further inquiry as he may think necessary consider that the History-sheet is required he will forward the report to the Superintendent for appropriate orders. It is further provided that whenever an officer-in-charge of the police station finds reason to believe, otherwise than in the course of an investigation, that any resident of his circle is addicted to crime, or whenever a gazetted officer or Circle Inspector for any reason believes that a history-sheet for any person is necessary a report must be submitted to the Superintendent, who will pass appropriate orders.
21. In the second situation that is ?On Conviction or Acquittal?, the specific order of the concerned Superintendent of Police on the basis of the recommendation/ report as provided in Regulation 240(2) of the U.P. Police Regulations, is mandatorily required.
22. In the instant case, as per the record, only one case was registered in the year 2008 against the petitioner which ultimately resulted into acquittal and except the same there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner is or has been a habitual offender. Prima-facie, the petitioner cannot be classified as a History-sheeter, even otherwise Regulation 240 of the U.P. Police Regulations though contemplates opening of the History-sheet on the basis of suspicion and on the basis of conviction or acquittal, but at the same time requirement of cogent and reliable material to form ?suspicion? about a person cannot be ruled out. Further, the recital of the written instructions, as quoted herein-above, does not indicate any reference to any order passed by the Superintendent of Police as provided under Regulation 240 of the U.P. Police Regulations. Additionally, the documents as contained in Annexure No.5, 6, 7 and 8 also reflect that no criminal antecedents of the petitioner are available in the concerned police stations.
23. At this stage, it would not be out of place to notice that the Regulation 232 and 233 of the U.P. Police Regulations provide that the History-sheet of Class B will be continuously open records and the subjects of these sheets will except for every special reasons remain under surveillance until death. The discontinuance of surveillance of the subject of a History-sheet does not entail closing that History-sheet. A History-sheet which is only a record of information need never be considered closed. In the case of persons whose surveillance is discontinued a note should be made to this effect in the history-sheet, and thereafter no periodical or other entries need be made unless something comes to notice which it is desirable to enter in the sheet.
24. Further, Regulation 234 of the U.P. Police Regulations categorically provides that no History-sheet of Class A may be discontinued without the sanction of the Superintendent of Police. If it is denied to discontinue the surveillance of the subject of a history sheet of Class B, the sanction of the Deputy Inspector General or Superintendent, Railway Police, must be obtained.
25. Learned counsel for the petitoner also argued that putting the name of the petitioner in the History-sheet amounts to violation of his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and by naming the petitioner as History-sheeter the police authorities have seriously encroached upon the privacy of the petitioner and his fundamental right of personal liberty.
26. Taking into consideration the spirit of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, this Court finds that the fundamental right as guaranteed under Article 21 is so designed that it protects the rights of a person to the extent that he shall not be deprived of his life or personal liberty except by the procedure established by 'law'. The provisions of U.P. Police Regulations carry the force of law and as such the enforcement of the same within the legal bounds cannot be taken as the violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
27. This aspect of the matter has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Malak Singh and others versus State of P&H and others, reported in (1981) 1 SCC 420, wherein Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chinnapa Reddy (as he then was) speaking on behalf of Bench observed that:
"8. The entry in the surveillance register is to be made on the basis of the material provided by the history sheet whose contents, by their very nature have to be confidential. It would be contrary to the public interest to reveal the information in the history sheet, particularly the source of Information. Revelation of the source of information may put the Informant in jeopardy. The observance of the principle of natural Justice, apart from not serving the ends of justice may thus lead to undesirable results. We accordingly hold that the rule audi alteram partem is not attracted.
9. But all this does not mean that the police have a licence to enter the names of whoever they like (dislike?) in the surveillance register; nor can the surveillance be such as to squeeze the fundamental freedoms guaranteed to all citizens or to obstruct the free exercise and enjoyment of those freedoms; nor can the surveillance so intrude as to offend the dignity of the individual. Surveillance of persons who do not fall within the categories mentioned in Rule 23.4 or for reasons unconnected with the prevention of crime, or excessive surveillance falling beyond the limits prescribed by the rules, will entitle a citizen to the court's protection which the court will not hesitate to give. The very Rules which prescribe the conditions for making entries in the surveillance register and the mode of surveillance appear to recognise the caution and care with which the police officers are required to proceed. The note following Rule 23.4 is instructive. It enjoins a duty upon the police officer to construe the rule strictly and confine the entries in the surveillance register to the class of persons mentioned in the rule. Similarly Rule 23.7 demands that there should be no illegal interference in the guise of surveillance. Surveillance, therefore, has to be unobtrusive and within bounds."
10. Ordinarily the names of persons with previous criminal record alone are entered in the surveillance register. They must be proclaimed offenders, previous convicts, or person who have already been placed on security for good behaviour. In addition, names of persons who are reasonably believed to be habitual offenders or receivers of stolen property whether they have been convicted or not may be entered. It is only in the case of this category of persons that there may be occasion for abuse of the power of the police officer to make entries in the surveillance register. But, here, the entry can only be made by the order of the Superintendent of Police who is prohibited from delegating his authority under Rule 23.5. Further it is necessary that the Superintendent of Police must entertain a reasonable belief that persons whose names are to be entered in Part II are habitual offenders or receivers of stolen property. While it may not be necessary to supply the grounds of belief to the persons whose names are entered in the surveillance register it may become necessary in some cases to satisfy the court when an entry is challenged that there are grounds to entertain such reasonable belief. In fact in the present case we sent for the relevant records and we have satisfied ourselves that there were sufficient grounds for the Superintendent of Police to entertain a reasonable belief. In the result we reject both the appeals subject to our observations regarding the mode of surveillance."
28. In Gobind versus State of Madhya Pradesh and others, reported in (1975) 2 SCC 148, the Hon'be Supreme Court has been pleased to observe that:
"Depending on the character and antecedents of the person subjected to surveillance as also the objects and the limitation under which surveillance is made, it cannot be said surveillance by domiciliary visits would always be unreasonable restriction upon the right of privacy. Assuming that the fundamental rights explicitly guaranteed to a citizen have penumbral zones and that the right to privacy is itself a fundamental right, that fundamental right must be subject to restriction on the basis of compelling public interest As Regulation 856 has the force of law, it cannot be said that the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 21 has been violated by the provisions contained in it; for, what is guaranteed under that Article is that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except by the procedure established by 'law'."
29. In the instant case, we find that only one criminal case against the petitioner was registered in the year 2008 wherein he was acquitted by the Court of Sessions vide the judgment and order dated 06.04.2022. This solitary case in the absence of any other criminal history or any substantial material to show that the petitioner is or like to become habitual criminal or abettor of such criminals, is not sufficient to entitle the Police Authorities to open History-sheet against the petitioner; as he cannot be termed as confirmed and professional criminal. If this proposition is not accepted then even a first offender may find himself history-sheeted and it will be an alarming situation to conceive.
30. Recently, the Hon?ble Apex Court of India in the case of Amanatullah Khan versus The Commissioner of Police, Delhi and others (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5719 of 2023; decided on 07.05.2024), has taken a very serious note of the issue in hand by passing a detailed order and expanded scope of the proceedings in exercise of its suo-moto power. The Hon?ble Supreme Court has been pleased to issue a guideline to the Police authorities of all the States and Union Territories to ensure that no mechanical entries in History Sheet are made of innocent individuals, simply because they happen to hail from the socially, economically and educationally disadvantaged backgrounds, along with those belonging to Backward Communities, Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes. The relevant part of the aforesaid judgement is extracted herein-below:
?14. Having partially addressed the grievance of the appellant, we now, in exercise of our suo motu powers, propose to expand the scope of these proceedings so that the police authorities in other States and Union Territories may also consider the desirability of ensuring that no mechanical entries in History Sheet are made of innocent individuals, simply because they happen to hail from the socially, economically and educationally disadvantaged backgrounds, along with those belonging to Backward Communities, Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes. While we are not sure about the degree of their authenticity, but there are some studies available in the public domain that reveal a pattern of an unfair, prejudicial and atrocious mindset. It is alleged that the Police Diaries are maintained selectively of individuals belonging to Vimukta Jatis, based solely on caste-bias, a somewhat similar manner as happened in colonial times. All the State Governments are therefore expected to take necessary preventive measures to safeguard such communities from being subjected to inexcusable targeting or prejudicial treatment. We must bear in mind that these pre-conceived notions often render them ?invisible victims? due to prevailing stereotypes associated with their communities, which may often impede their right to live a life with self-respect.
15. The value for human dignity and life is deeply embedded in Article 21 of our Constitution. The expression ?life? unequivocally includes the right to live a life worthy of human honour and all that goes along with it. Self-regard, social image and an honest space for oneself in one?s surrounding society, are just as significant to a dignified life as are adequate food, clothing and shelter.
16. It seems that a periodic audit mechanism overseen by a senior police officer, as directed for the NCT of Delhi, will serve as a critical tool to review and scrutinize the entries made, so as to ascertain that these are devoid of any biases or discriminatory practices. Through the effective implementation of audits, we can secure the elimination of such deprecated practices and kindle the legitimate hope that the right to live with human dignity, as guaranteed under Article 21, is well protected.
17. We are conscious of the fact that States or Union Territories, other than the NCT of Delhi, are not before us. They have not been heard. No positive mandamus can thus be issued to them. Further, we are not aware of the existing Rules/Policies or Standing Orders in vogue in different States/Union Territories. We, therefore, deem it appropriate, at this stage, to direct all the States/Union Territories to revisit their policy-regime and consider whether suitable amendments on the pattern of the ?Delhi Model? are required to be made so that our observations made in paragraphs 14 to 16 of this order can be given effect in true letter and spirit.
18. The Registry is, accordingly, directed to forward a copy of this judgement to the Chief Secretary and Director General of Police of all States and Union Territories to enable them to consider and comply with what has been held above, as early as possible but not later than six months.?
31. Taking into consideration the factual matrix of the case as has been placed before this Court and in the light of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as discussed herein-above, we are of the view that prima facie, the petitioner cannot be bracketed as confirmed or professional criminal. At the cost of repetition, it is reiterated that Regulation 228 of the U.P. Police Regulation casts duty on the Police Officer to construe the regulation strictly and open the History-sheet only on the basis of credible material. It also casts duty on the concerned authority to reasonably believe, that the person against whom History-sheet is opened, is a confirmed and professional criminal or habitual offender. The record available before this Court does not indicate any such order to show the 'subjective satisfaction' or 'reasonable belief' of the Superintendent of Police that the petitioner is a confirmed or professional criminal or habitual offender.
32. Keeping in a view the facts, circumstances, legal provisions and the above-noted case laws, we are of the considered opinion that the opening of the 'History-sheet' of any person should not be a mechanical exercise, rather the same should be careful, proper and thorough as it is directly connected with the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Opening of 'History-sheet' must be on the basis of subjective satisfaction of the competent authority, and the subjective satisfaction must be armed with legal provisions vis-a-vis well reasoned and speaking decision, failing which it would be hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India being arbitrary in nature and not permissible in law. The impugned action in the present case, prima facie, does not qualify the aforesaid parameters for the reason that nothing has been indicated in the instructions dated 13/14.08.2025 as to what decision has been taken by the Superintendent of Police after the acquittal of the petitioner in Case Crime No.1125 of 2008; even reference of the acquittal order dated 06.04.2022 has not been given in the said communication/letter, the same is not appreciated.
33. Hence, instead of quashing the impugned 'History-sheet of the petitioner, we find it appropriate to grant liberty to the petitioner to prefer a comprehensive representation afresh before the Superintendent of Police, Ambedkar Nagar (respondent no.2), raising all pleas and grounds which are available to him. In case such a representation along with a copy of the earlier representation and copy of this order is filed by the petitioner before the respondent no.2 within a period of two weeks from today, the Superintendent of Police (respondent no.2) shall consider the same in the light of the observations made herein-above and shall pass a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in consonance with the relevant regulations of the U.P. Police Regulations. The second respondent/Superintendent of Police shall deal with each and every ground raised by the petitioner through his representation after summoning the relevant records from concerned police station, within a period of three weeks from the date of filing of the said representation.
34. It is expected that in the meanwhile, petitioner shall not be subjected to any unnecessary harassment by the police authorities in pursuance of the History-sheet as noted herein-above.
35. The present writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.
36. No order as to cost.
(Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.)
August 29, 2025
Abhishek Gupta/Om
