Rajasthan High Court
Samundra Saini S/O Shri Birdhi ... vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 9 October, 2023
Bench: Anil Kumar Upman
[2023:RJ-JP:30032]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6278/2019
Samundra Saini S/o Shri Birdhi Chand Saini B/c Mali, Aged About
35 Years, R/o Plot No.6, Nand Gaon Colony, Nagina Factory Ke
Piche, Nangal Mod, Jhotwara, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principle Secretary,
Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Deputy Commissioner Of Police Jaipur West, Jaipur
Metropolitan, Jaipur.
3. Sho Police Station Jhotwara, Jaipur West, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Jindal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Atul Sharma, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Judgment
09/10/2023
1. Heard.
2. The instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been
filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 16.05.2016
passed by respondent No.2 Deputy Commissioner of Police, Jaipur
West directing opening of history sheet of the petitioner being
contrary to the provisions of the Rajasthan Police Rules. The
petitioner has also prayed for removal of his name from the
history-sheet/surveillance Register as well as from the official
website of the police department.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.05.2016, the SHO PS
Jhotwara, respondent No.3 herein sent a letter to Dy.
[2023:RJ-JP:30032] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-6278/2019]
Commissioner of Police, Jaipur West, respondent No.2 herein
seeking permission for opening history sheet of the petitioner. It
was averred in the application that the petitioner is habitual
offender and he is involved in as many as 13 cases. A list of these
thirteen cases was also annexed with the letter dated 11.05.2016
The letter sent by the respondent No.3 was also forwarded by the
ACP with his recommendations to open history sheet. The
respondent No.2 vide his order dated 16.05.2016 directed to open
history-sheet of the petitioner. The petitioner procured relevant
documents of this case under the RTI Act and hence, this misc.
petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that till date, in
none of the cases, list whereof has been submitted by the
respondent no.3 along with letter dated 11.05.2016 (Annex.2),
the petitioner has been convicted. He further submits that rather,
in three cases, he has been acquitted by the court concerned and
in two cases, the police after investigation has filed negative final
reports. While referring the provisions of Section 2A of the
Rajathan Habitual Offenders Act, 1953, which provides definition
of "habitual offender", learned counsel submits that the petitioner
is neither a habitual offender nor he is habitual receiver of stolen
property. He thus, submits that the provisions of Rajasthan Police
Rules do not empower the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Jaipur
West to direct opening of the history sheet against the petitioner.
In support of his contention, learned counsel places reliance upon
the cases of (1) Shyam Lal vs State of Rajasthan reported in
2012(3) Cr.L.R. 1325 & (2) Pankaj Charan vs State of Rajasthan
reported in 2015 Manu (Rajasthan High Court) 68.
[2023:RJ-JP:30032] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-6278/2019]
5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer
of the petitioner's counsel and contends that looking to the past
history and criminal antecedents, the DCP Jaipur has ordered to
open history-sheet of the petitioner. He thus prays that the powers
of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. do not deserve to be
exercised for quashing the order dated 16.05.2016. However, the
contention of the petitioner's counsel that till date, the petitioner
has not been convicted in even a single case, has not been denied.
6. In view of above facts, it is apparent that as per sub-para
3(a) of Rule 4.4 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965, the essential
requirement regarding the existence of two or more convictions
for the offences enumerated in Rule 8.22 has not been satisfied.
Admittedly, till date, the petitioner has not been convicted in even
a single case.
7. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the
respective parties and the material available on record and in the
light of the view expressed by this Court in the aforesaid cases,
the misc. petition is allowed and the order dated 16.05.2016
passed by Deputy Commissioner of Police, Jaipur West is set
aside. The history-sheet, opened if any, in pursuance of the order
dated 16.05.2016 is hereby quashed. The respondents are
directed to remove the name of the petitioner from the
surveillance register as well as from the official website of the
police departmen34t within one month from today.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J
Sudhir Asopa/828
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
