Delhi High Court
Parveen vs State Of Delhi & Others on 29 September, 2010
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
17.
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 1000/2010
PARVEEN ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. K.B. Andley, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. M.L. Yadav, Mr. Lokesh Chandra and Mr.
Shamik, Advocates.
versus
STATE OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Kushagra Arora, Advocate for
Mr. Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel for the
State along with ASI Bal Ram, P.S. Inderpuri.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 29.09.2010
1. Learned counsel for the State prays for and is granted permission to
place on record status report. As per the status report, last FIR was
registered against the petitioner in November, 1998. Thereafter, one
calandra under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. was registered on 3rd June, 1999,
but the petitioner was discharged. However, on 4 th November, 2005
proceeding under Section 110(G) Cr.P.C. was initiated to bound down the
petitioner for good behavior as he was an habitual offender. Full details
of these proceedings are not available. It may be noted that as per the
status report, the petitioner has been acquitted in three cases and in one
case, FIR No. 165/1998, proceedings are still pending trial.
2. The question of entries in surveillance register in bundle A and B
has been subject matter of decision in Sarjeet Singh versus
Commissioner of Police and Others, 2002 CRL.L.J. 3824. The Division
Bench has explained the purpose of the entries in the surveillance register
and observed:
"13. We have already referred to the brief
scheme of Chapter 23 of the Punjab Police Rules
as applicable to the Union Territory of Delhi. We
know from the decision in the case of Dhanji
Ram Sharma v. Superintendent of Poice, North
District, Delhi Police, AIR 1966 SC 1766 :
(1966 Cri LJ 1486) that the provisions have been
enacted to prevent commission of offences and
collect intelligence effecting the public peace.
For the efficient discharge of their duties the
police officers have been empowered by the
Punjab Police Rules to open the history sheets of
the suspects. The powers have to be exercised
with caution and in strict conformity of the Rules
and that a police officer must satisfy that the
condition precedent has been satisfied."
3. The Division Bench also referred to circular dated 21 st September,
2000, which requires periodical review of the said list depending upon the
conduct of the persons mentioned therein. In the said judgment, it has
been accordingly held as under:-
"17. As one goes through the said circular it is
clear that instructions have already been issued
that Deputy Commissioner of Police must record
reasons to keep the persons name in the
surveillance register and further that history
sheet of suspects whose names are in Bundle „A‟
or „B; should be reviewed periodically. The
period of such review has not been mentioned.
Indeed once such a review has been done it
would be by necessary corollary following that
the person concerned has a right to approach the
concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police for
deletion of his name in the register as maintained
on such facts as may be deemed appropriate. It
is further directed that it is in the fitness of things
that the periodical review should be preferably
made after every six months and the overall
conduct of the concerned person can be looked
into in an appropriate case the name of the
person can be deleted from the register when
necessary facts are brought to the notice of the
concerned officer."
4. In terms of the ratio laid down in Sarjeet Singh (supra),
respondents will examine the case of the petitioner in accordance with law
and their circular dated 21st September, 2000 and inform the outcome to
the petitioner within a period of three months from the date copy of this
order is received.
The writ petition is disposed of.
DASTI.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
SEPTEMBER 29, 2010
VKR
