Aditya Pal vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 11553 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Aditya Pal vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil ... on 15 October, 2025

Author: Rajnish Kumar

Bench: Rajnish Kumar

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:64077-DB
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW 
 
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6423 of 2023   
 
   Aditya Pal    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko And Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Jai Singh Chauhan   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 10
 
   
 
 HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.  

HON'BLE ZAFEER AHMAD, J.

1. Heard Sri Jai Singh Chauahan learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 6.6.2023 passed by the Superintendent of Police, district-Sitapur vide letter no. C.A. 558/2023, by means of which, the representation of the petitioner for wiping out his name from the register of history-sheet and stopping the surveillance has been rejected by the Superintendent of Police, district-Sitapur.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the history-sheet of the petitioner has been opened in arbitrarily and illegal manner and against the provisions made in Regulation 228 of the U.P. Police Regulations(hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations'). There are two kinds of history-sheet under the said Regulations. The first is Class-A and second is Class-B. The history-sheet of the petitioner is of class-A category. There are only five cases against the petitioner, out of which, in one of the cases the petitioner has already been acquitted. However none of the cases against petitioner are covered under the Class-A category.

4. It is also submitted that the representation of the petitioner has also not been considered appropriately and the same has been rejected by means of the impugned order merely on the ground that four cases are still pending against the petitioner but that cannot be a ground for either opening the history-sheet or non-closure of the history-sheet or for continuance of the surveillance. Learned counsel, thus, submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and the same is liable to be quashed.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that the history-sheet has rightly been opened as the petitioner is a habitual criminal as there are five cases against him. He further submits that the impugned order has rightly been passed in accordance with law because four cases are still pending against the petitioner and during pendency of the said cases neither the surveillance can be stopped nor the history-sheet can be closed. He, thus, submits that the petition is misconceived and it is liable to be dismissed.

6. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

7. The HS(History-sheet) No. 4193A of the petitioner has been opened on the ground that he is a history-sheeter in the record of police station Kamlapur, district Sitapur and as per report of the Circle Officer, Sidhauli and SHO, Kamlapur, there is criminal history of the petitioner. The report was submitted, on the basis of five criminal cases, against the petitioner, which are as follows :-

???? ?????? ??? ?? ??????? ?????? ??????? ???-

????

???????

????????

????

???? ???? ?????? ??? ??????

?????? ???????? ??? ?????? ?? ??????

??????

????????

518/2007

???????? ???? 392, 411, 120B ????????

A-132/2007 ?????? 06.12.2007

??????? ??? ????

??????

????????

519/2007

???????? ???? 307 ???????? ? ???? 2/3 ?????? ????????? ??? ?????????? ?????????? ?????? ???????

A-165/2008 ??????

17.09.2008

??????? ??? ????

???????

????????

408/2007

???????? ???? 392 ????????

A-111/2007 ??????

16.10.2007

????????

???????

?????? ??????

336/2018

???????? ???? 376 ????????

?????? ???? ???????? ???????

???????

????????

170/2019

???????? ???? 504, 506 ????????

A-90/2019 ??????

11.06.2019

???? ?? ??????? ???????? ????????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ???? ?? ???

8. Regulation 228 of the Regulations provides that the history-sheet can be opened only for persons who are likely to become habitual criminal or abettors of such criminals. Regulation 228 of the Regulations is reproduced as under :-

"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 wagon, 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 many under paragraph 238 be applied to him. In the event of a class A history-sheet man become addicted to miscellaneous crime his history-sheet may be converted into a class B history-sheet with the sanction of the Superintendent".

9. As per the aforesaid Regulation, history-sheet of Class-A category can be opened if a person is found to be involved in committing offences of dacoity, burglary, cattle-theft, railway-goods, wagon theft and abettors thereof.

10. As per Regulation 231 of the Regulations, the history-sheet of Class-A will unless they are 'starred' remain under surveillance for at least two consecutive years of which they have spent no part in jail and in the circumstances mentioned therein the surveillance can be discontinued. Regulation 231 of the Regulations is extracted hereunder :-

"231. The subjects of history-sheets of class-A will unless they are 'starred' remain under surveillance for at least two consecutive years 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 two 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".

11. In view of the above provisions, the history-sheet of class-A category can be opened only when the person, whose history-sheet is to be opened under Regulation 228(1) of the Regulations, is or likely to become habitual criminal or abettors of such criminals and it can be opened for dacoits, burglars, cattle-thieves, railway-goods wagon thieves and abettors thereof but none of the aforesaid ingredients are fulfilled in the case of the petitioner in view of the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner as disclosed in above paragraph 6 on account of which the Class-A history-sheet of the petitioner could have been opened, therefore, this Court is of the view that the history-sheet of the petitioner was wrongly and illegally opened.

12. The petitioner preferred a representation for closing the history-sheet and stopping the surveillance. The same was not decided, therefore, he approached this court, by means of the writ petition no. 35931(M/B) of 2018, which was disposed of by means of the order dated 17.8.2022 with a direction to the respondent no. 3 i.e. Superintendent of Police, Sitapur for disposal of the representation by passing a reasoned and speaking order. In compliance thereof, the impugned order dated 6.6.2023 has been passed by the Superintendent of Police, Sitapur.

13. The only ground taken in the impugned order for rejection of the application of the petitioner is that the case crime no. 170 of 2019 under Section 504 and 506 I.P.C. and complaint case no. 336 of 2018 under Section 376 I.P.C., police station Kamlapur and case crime no. 518 of 2007 under Section 392, 411 and 120B I.P.C. and case crime no. 519 of 2007 under Section 307 I.P.C. and Section 2/3 of the Gangsters Act, police station Atariya, district Sitapur are pending for consideration, therefore, there is no legal ground for closure of the history-sheet and surveillance. This could not have been a ground for rejection of the representation because as per Regulation 228 of the Regulations, history-sheet can be opened and the surveillance can be continued for persons who are or likely to be habitual criminals and have committed the offences as given in the category of Class A because history-sheet of Class-A of the petitioner has opened and as per discussions made above none of the offences are covered under the Class-A category and no provision could also be shown that during pendency of criminal trials of any category the history-sheet can be opened and surveillance can be continued. Thus, this Court is of the view that the impugned order has been passed in arbitrarily and illegal manner and without application of mind and without considering the provisions made in the Regulations and grounds taken in the representation.

14. A Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Abhay Singh S/o Kamlesh Singh versus State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home & Ors. passed in Misc. Bench No. 9704 of 2009, by means of the judgment and order dated 10.11.2010 has quashed the history-sheet on the ground that the case is not covered under the provisions of para 228 of the U.P. Police Regulations. The relevant paragraph is extracted herein below :-

"Thus, in the light of the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court, we have to look into the factual matrix as stated in the writ petition and counter affidavit from which it comes out that the present case which is registered against the petitioner are not covered under the provisions of Para 228 of U.P. Police Regulations, the perusal of which shows that Class-A history sheets may only be opened for dacoits, burglars, cattle thieves and railway goods wagon thieves and abettors thereof and since the case referred above registered against the petitioner nowhere shows that the petitioner may be termed as dacoit, burglar, cattle thief, railway goods wagon thief and abettor thereof, as such, the name which has been entered in Register No. 8 meant for history sheeters amounts to violation of the fundamental right of the petitioner with regard to freedom of movement as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(b) as well as Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the opening of history sheet of the petitioner at P.S. Kamlapur District Sitapur suffers from non-application of mind".

15. A Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Mohammad Naeem @ Naeem Babu versus State of U.P. and others passed in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 1323 of 2013, by means of the judgement and order dated 1.12.2015 has held that a person cannot be deprived of freedom enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution without applying the principles and procedure established by law.

16. In view of above and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that not only the history-sheet of the petitioner has been opened in utter violation of law and the Regulations but the representation of the petitioner has also been rejected without considering the grounds and in accordance with law, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed.

17. The petion is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order dated 6.6.2023 is hereby quashed. The respondent no. 3 i.e. Superintendent of Police, district Sitapur is directed to strike out the name of the petitioner from the register of the class-A history-sheet. No order as to costs.

(Zafeer Ahmad,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.)

October 15, 2025

kanhaiya