Abhay Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 10748 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Abhay Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 18 September, 2025

Author: Rajesh Singh Chauhan

Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:57696-DB
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW 
 
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7789 of 2025   
 
   Abhay Singh    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Rajiv Raman Srivastava   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 9
 
   
 
 HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.  

HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

1. Heard Sri Rajiv Raman Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.N. Tilhari, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the material brought before this Court.

2. With consent of parties, the matter is being disposed of finally at the admission stage, dispensing with the need of counter affidavit.

3. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the History Sheet No.966A opened at Police Station Hargaon, District Sitapur, and also a direction to respondent no.2, Superintendent of Police, Sitapur, to decide his representation dated 21.05.2025.

4. The case of the petitioner is that he is about 65 years of age and retired from the Health Department, U.P., on 30.11.2021 with unblemished service record.

5. His wife, Smt. Kalpana Singh, was elected Block Pramukh of Hargaon in the year 2006 and remained as such till 2016. It is stated that due to political rivalry with one Late Girish Mishra, the petitioner was unnecessarily implicated in false cases, just to malign his reputation and to put unreasonable pressure upon his family.

6. The impugned History Sheet No.966A was opened on the basis of following four cases:

(i) Case Crime No.152/1999, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 302, 308, 427 IPC, P.S. Hargaon ? petitioner acquitted on 07.04.2008 by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Sitapur.

(ii) Case Crime No.202/2017, under Section 304A IPC, P.S. Hargaon ? Final Report submitted and accepted on 02.03.2023.

(iii) Case Crime No.534/2022, under Sections 447, 379, 427, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Hargaon ? Final Report dated 09.10.2023 submitted in favour of petitioner.

(iv) Case Crime No.450/2018, under Sections 272, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Sec.60/60(2) Excise Act and Sec.63/65 Copyright Act, P.S. Khairabad ? petitioner on bail since 18.01.2019, trial pending.

7. Thus, except for one pending case of 2018, petitioner stands acquitted or exonerated in all others.

8. It is further urged that petitioner is neither owner of the premises from where illicit liquor was alletgedly recovered nor he was present on the spot at the time of alleged recovery. His implication in the case is only due to political vendetta and linking petitioner's name with the premises allegedly used for illicit liquor, despite his denial of ownership, without due proof, reflects non-application of mind and arbitrary inference.

9. Immediately on coming to know about the impugned history-sheet, petitioner peferred a representation dated 21.05.2025, followed by reminder dated 03.07.2025; to the Superintendent of Police, Sitapur, enclosing therewith the details of his acquittals and Final Reports but no decision on the said representation has been taken, till date.

10. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the opening of the impugned History Sheet No.966A is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is urged that Regulation 228 of U.P. Police Regulations clearly stipulates that history-sheets can be opened only for habitual criminals or abettors, whereas petitioner has no such history.

11. Learned counsel further submits that placing petitioner's name in history-sheet, despite his acquittals and clean record, not only amounts to violation of his right to life and liberty but also tarnished his reputation.

12. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits on the basis of the written instructions that the petitioner has criminal background and hence the impugned history-sheet has been rightly opened under the provisions of U.P. Police Regulations.

13. For ready reference, the Regulations 228 & 240 of the are extracted 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."

14. 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)15. 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."

16. In the instant case, the petitioner has three acquittals/final reports in his favour, and only one solitary pending case from 2018. This does not satisfy the threshold of "habitual" under Regulation 228.

17. Regulation 240 further mandates that no history-sheet can be opened without specific orders of Superintendent of Police, who must record his subjective satisfaction based on cogent material. The record placed before us does not reveal any such speaking order.

18. 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."

19. 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'."

20. 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 on 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."

21. It is trite in law that mere suspicion, unsubstantiated allegations, or isolated cases cannot justify branding a person as 'habitual criminal'.

22. Article 21 guarantees right to life and personal liberty, which includes right to live with dignity, privacy and reputation. Article 14 ensures that State action must be non-arbitrary. Article 19 guarantees freedoms which cannot be curtailed by unwarranted police surveillance.

23. The fundamental caution sounded by the Apex Court is that opening of history-sheet is not a mechanical exercise but a serious intrusion upon a citizen's liberty and reputation, and therefore must be based on reliable material and reasoned satisfaction of competent authority.

24. In view of above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned History-sheet at this stage and finds it appropriate to grant liberty to the petitioner to prefer a comprehensive representation afresh before the Superintendent of Police, Sitapur (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 and the judgments as discussed herein-above. 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.

25. 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.

26. The present writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.

27. No order as to cost.

(Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.)

September 18, 2025

Arun