Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kapil Rao Kadam vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 April, 2021
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5470/2019
Kapil Rao Kadam S/o Yashwant Rao Adam, Aged About 34 Years,
B/c Maratha R/o Chandra Shekhar Ajad Chow, Nimbahera
District Chittorgarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Superintendent Of Police, Chittorgarth.
3. Station House Officer, P.s. Nimbahera District Chittorgarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Zafar Khan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
05/04/2021
The petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order passed by the
Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh directing to open the history
sheet of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that total seven
cases have been lodged against the petitioner and in none of the
cases, the petitioner has been convicted. It is argued that the
Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh while acting in an arbitrary
manner has ordered to open history sheet of the petitioner
curtailing his right to life and liberty, therefore, the same may
kindly be quashed and set aside.
(2 of 4) [CRLMP-5470/2019]
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
following judgments rendered at Principal Seat as well as Jaipur
Bench of this Hon'ble Court:
• Sohan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [2015 1
CriC(Raj)316].
• Babu Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan [2006 2 CriC(Raj) 1182].
• Shyam Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan [2012 3 CrLR 1325].
• Swaroop Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No.10993/2013].
• Ramgopal Jain Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. [2013(3)
WLC (Raj.) 466].
• Suraj Prakash Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [2015 4
CrLR 1938]
• Mahesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [2016 2 CriCC
424].
Learned Public Prosecutor has produced the latest report
obtained from the SHO Police Station, Nimbahera, District
Chittorgarh and agrees the chart issued by SHO, Police Station
Nimbahera reflects the correct position of all the cases lodged
against the present petitioner. Out of seven cases, in none of the
cases, the petitioner has been convicted.
Learned counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder has shown
the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965, Rule 4.4 whereof deals with the
Surveillance Register No.8 whereby the Historysheet is
maintained. The said Rule 4.4 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965,
reads as under:
(3 of 4) [CRLMP-5470/2019]
"4.4. Surveillance Register No.,8 - (1) In every
police station, other than those of the railway police, a
Surveillance Register shall be maintained in form
4.4(1).
(2) In part I of such register shall be entered the
names of persons commonly resident within or
commonly frequenting the local jurisdiction of the
police station concerned, who belong to one or more
of the following classes :-
(a) All persons who have been proclaimed under
section 87, Code of Criminal Procedure.
(b) All released convicts in regard to whom. an order
under section 565, Criminal Procedure Code, has been
made.
(c) All convicts the execution of whose sentence as
suspended in the whole, or any part of whose
punishment has been remitted conditionally under
section 401, Criminal Procedure Code.
(d) All persons restricted under Rules of Government
mode under section 8 of the Rajasthan Habitual
Offenders Act, 1953.
(3) In part II of such register may be entered at the
discretion of the Superintendent : -
(4) Persons who have been convicted twice, or more
than twice, of offences mentioned in rule 8.22;
(b) persons who are reasonably believed to be
habitual offenders or receivers of stolen property
whether they have been convicted or not;
(c) persons under security under sections 109 or 110,
code of Criminal Procedure;
(d) convicts released before the expiration of their
sentences under the Prisons Act and Remission Rules
without imposition of any conditions.
Note:- This rule must be strictly construed, and
entries must be confined to the names of persons
falling in the four classes named therein."
(4 of 4) [CRLMP-5470/2019]
Learned counsel for the petitioner in his rejoinder submits
that a bare perusal of the aforequoted Rule, makes it amply clear
that the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of necessary
requirements of Rule 4.4 in the Surveillance Register.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, as well as
perusing the record of the case alongwith the precedent law cited
at the Bar and Rule 4.4 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 as
quoted above, this Court is of the opinion that it is a consistent
position of the precedent law that where a person is not convicted
in the cases pending against him, then the entry of the name of
the person concerned from the surveillance register was to be
removed.
This Court has also read the aforequoted Rule 4.4 of the
Rules of 1965, and finds that in the present facts and
circumstances, the said Rule 4.4 is not applicable for maintaining
the name of the petitioner in the Surveillance Register. The fact of
the petitioner having seven cases is not denied, however, in all the
cases, the petitioner has been acquitted.
In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The
respondents are directed to delete the name of the petitioner
from the Surveillance Register No.8, forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
182-BJSH/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
