Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Manish Agarwal vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:17886) on 7 April, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:17886]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 831/2025
Manish Agarwal S/o Shri Harivallabh Agarwal, Aged About 48
Years, R/o 1 B 13 Segva Housing Board, Bapu Nagar Senti,
Police Station Sadar ,chittorgarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Superintendent Of Police, Chittorgarh.
3. Station House Officer, Police Station, Senti Police Station,
Chittorgarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pranjal Babel
For Respondent(s) : Mr. SR Choudhary, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
07/04/2025
1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has
been preferred for setting aside the order dated 04.04.2013
passed by the learned Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh
whereby history sheet of the petitioner was opened.
2. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by learned
counsel for the petitioner are that on 04.04.2013 the
Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh, upon the application
received from the Station House Officer, Police Station Senti Police
Station, Chittorgarh passed the order, whereby the direction was
given to open the history sheet against the petitioner.
3. The details of cases registered against the petitioner are as
under:
S.R. No. First Information Case No. Before Offence Under Decision/Result
Report the Ld. Court Sections
1. FIR No. 353/2000 U/s 341, 323 of Decided vide
222/2000 of IPC order dated
[2025:RJ-JD:17886] (2 of 10) [CRLMP-831/2025]
Police Station 17.07.2001
Kotwali
Chittorgarh
2. FIR No. 198/2005 U/s 143, 341, Decided vide
522/2004, 323 of IPC order dated
of PS Kotwali 19.08.2005
Chittorgarh
3. FIR No. 386/2006 U/s 147, 149, Acquited vide
535/2006 341, 323 of IPC order
of PS Kotwali ated 20.07.2010
Chittorgarh
4. FIR No. 354/2007 U/s 451, 323, Decided through
181/2007 of 427, 34 of IPC settlement vide
Police Station order
Kotwali dated
Chittorgarh 22.06.2011
5. FIR No. 58/2009 90/2009 U/s 147, 451, Imposed fine of
of PS Kotwali 341, 323, 427, Rs.500/- vide
Chittorgarh 504, 149 of IPC order dated
21.12.2010
6. FIR No. 46/2013 U/s 147, 149, Acquited
332/2009 308, 365, 323 because of
PS Chanderia IPC benefit of doubt
vide order
dated
31.01.2017
7. FIR No. 75/2016 U/s 147, 148, Acquitted vide
64/2013 PS 144, 323, 452, order dated
Sadar 327 IPC 16.03.2016
Chittorgarh
8. FIR No. 226/2014 U/s 147, 149, Acquitted vide
65/2013 PS 341, 323, 324 order dated
Sadar 307 of IPC 06.04.2016
Chittorgarh
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Rule
4.4 and Rule 4.9 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965, the history-
sheet can be opened if the name of a person is entered in the
surveillance Register and if person falls under the essential
ingredients provided in Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 as well as
definition of the Habitual offender under the Rajasthan Habitual
Offenders Act, 1953. As per learned counsel, the present
petitioner is not falling under the definition of Habitual offender
[2025:RJ-JD:17886] (3 of 10) [CRLMP-831/2025]
and also does not fall under the Rule 4.4 and Rule 4.9 of the Rules
1965.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as
per Rule 4.9 of the Rules 1965, the concerned officer should have
reasonable belief that a person is habitually addicted to crime or
to be aider or abettor; the petitioner does not even fall under the
category of Habitual Offender.
6. On the other hand, learned Dy.G.A. opposed the aforesaid
submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that
the petitioner was declared as the history sheeter, which is valid in
eye of the law and the concerned Superintendent of Police came to
such conclusion, after duly looking into the overall facts and
circumstances of the present case and the material available
before him.
7. Heard learned counsel for both parties as well as perused the
record of the case.
8. The petitioner was prosecuted in the year 2000 and
convicted for the offence under Sections 341 and 323 which was
of the nature of petty nature. He was again prosecuted and
convicted for the offence under Section 147, 149, 341, 323 and
307 of IPC whereafter more than 20 years have elapsed but he
was never convicted in any case. After 2013 his indulgence has
not been noticed in any criminal activity. It can be presumed that
he has reformed to a great extent. Now, showing his name in the
list of criminals and publicizing the same would be a stigma and
may put hindrance in his reformation. He should be given an
opportunity to come in the main stream of the society. Putting
name in the list of notorious criminals may cause incalculable
[2025:RJ-JD:17886] (4 of 10) [CRLMP-831/2025]
harm to his reputation which he gained after 2013 and may be
deleterious to his self esteem. Besides the above, the decision of
the respondent-authority in enlisting him in the panel of criminals
is not in accordance with the provisions of Police Rules 4.4 and 4.9
of the Rules 1965. This Court had an occasion to deal with issue in
the case of Ayub Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan. For ready
reference, the same is being reproduced hereinbelow:-
"1.This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
hasbeen preferred claiming the following reliefs:
"It is therefore, most respectfully
prayed that the impugned order of opening
history sheet against the petitioner, dated
05.12.1990 passed by learned
Superintendent of Police, Sirohi may kindly
be quashed and set aside. And in alternate
the History Sheet of the petitioner may
kindly be closed.
And any other orders or direction,
interim order for which this Hon'ble Court
may feels just and proper in the facts &
circumstances, may kindly be passed in
favour of the petitioner".
2. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court
by learned counsel for the petitioner are that on
05.12.1990 the Superintendent of Police, Sirohi, upon
the application received from the Station House Officer,
Police Station Abu Road Sadar, passed the order,
whereby the direction was given to open the history
sheet against the petitioner.
3. The details of cases registered against the
petitioner are as under:
S.R. First Offenc Decisi
[2025:RJ-JD:17886] (5 of 10) [CRLMP-831/2025]
No. Inform e on/
ation Under Result
Report Sectio
ns
1. FIR U/s Acuitt
No. 341, al vide
134/19 323 order
88, PS IPC dated
Aburo 01.10.
ad 1990
City
2. FIR U/s Convi
No. 379 cted
205/19 IPC vide
88, PS order
Aburo dated
ad 28.01.
Sadar 1994
3. FIR U/s Rs.10
No. 4/25 0/-
215/19 Arms fine
89 PS Act vide
Aburo order
ad dated
Sadar 19.01.
4. FIR U/s Acquit
No. 33 all
216/19 Forest vide
89 Act order
PS ated
Aburo 01.05.
ad 1996
Sadar
5. FIR U/s Acquit
No. 354, tal
32/200 323 vide
2 IPC order
PS dated
[2025:RJ-JD:17886] (6 of 10) [CRLMP-831/2025]
Reoda 17.01.
r 2003
6. FIR U/s
No. 279, Rs.80
270/20 304A 0/-
04 IPC fine
PS vide
Aburo order
ad dated
Sadar 25.08.
7. FIR U/s FR
No. 447, given
08 PS IPC
Aburo and
ad 3(1)
Sadar (x)
SC/ST
Act
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
as per Rule 4.4 and Rule 4.9 of the Rajasthan Police
Rules, 1965, the history-sheet can be opened if the
name of a person is entered in the surveillance Register
and if person falls under the essential ingredients
provided in Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 as well as
definition of the Habitual offender under the Rajasthan
Habitual Offenders Act, 1953. As per learned counsel,
the present petitioner is not falling under the definition
of Habitual offender and also does not fall under the
Rule 4.4 and Rule 4.9 of the Rules 1965.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submitted that as per Rule 4.9 of the Rules 1965, the
concerned officer should have reasonable belief that a
person is habitually addicted to crime or to be aider or
[2025:RJ-JD:17886] (7 of 10) [CRLMP-831/2025]
abettor; the petitioner does not even fall under the
category of Habitual Offender.
6. On the other hand, learned Dy.G.A. opposed the
aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner
and submitted that the petitioner was declared as the
history sheeter, which is valid in eye of the law and the
concerned Superintendent of Police came to such
conclusion, after duly looking into the overall facts and
circumstances of the present case and the material
available before him.
7. Heard learned counsel for both parties as well as
perused the record of the case.
8. This Court, in the case of Sanjay Vs. State And
Ors. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 792/2016
and Other connected matter) decided on
23.01.2023, as also in the case of Rakesh Alias
Rekhraj Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal
Misc. Petition No. 6584/2022) decided on
23.01.2023, which were also pertaining to opening of
the history-sheet, observed as under:-
11. While considering Rules 4.4 and 4.9 of
the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 as well as
the judgment cited, this Court observes that
for sustaining a history-sheet against a
person, either a person has to have three
cases of convictions which would bring him
within the domain of the definition of
"Habitual Offender" so that he could be
declared as a history-sheeter, by entering his
name in the surveillance register, or as per
Rule 4.9 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965,
it is also stated that anything reasonable
could be the criteria for determination of
entering a person's name in the surveillance
register, as per his being habitual to commit
crime.
[2025:RJ-JD:17886] (8 of 10) [CRLMP-831/2025]
11.1 For the sake of brevity, this Court
arrives at the following uniform criteria to
determine whether an entry of a person's
name in the surveillance register is justified:
(a) A person having three consecutive
convictions against him, and being a habitual
offender, shall be liable for continuance of
entry of his name in the surveillance register,
while declaring him as a history-sheeter;
however, if the convictions are 15 years or
before, then the history sheet/entry of his
name in the surveillance register will not fall
in this criteria of sustenance.
OR
(b) If a person is having more than ten cases
against him, in totality, irrespective of the
result, his name, at the discretion of the
concerned authority, entered in the
surveillanc eregister, while declaring him as a
history-sheeter, is justified and deserves
continuance; but if a person is having more
than ten cases and all of them are 10 years
old, then the history sheet/entry of his name
in the surveillance register, will not fall in this
criteria of sustenance.
11.2 As an upshot of the above, this Court
observes that a history-sheet shall be
amenable to judicial scrutiny as above, and
thus, while keeping into consideration Rule
4.4and Rule 4.9 of the Rajasthan Police
Rules, 1965 and the precedent law, this
Court is of the opinion that the entry of a
person's name in the surveillance
register/history sheet, on count of his being a
habitual offender, shall not be interfered
with, if there are three consecutive
convictions against such person, or such an
entry in the history sheet/surveillance
register shall not be interfered with, if a
[2025:RJ-JD:17886] (9 of 10) [CRLMP-831/2025]
person is having more than 10 cases, in
totality, against him, irrespective of the
result. (The condition of 10 cases shall not
apply, if there are no cases in last 10 years;
similarly, if the convictions are 15 years or
before, then again the exclusion of the
person's name from the history
sheet/surveillance register shall be
warranted).
11.3 This Court thus observes that if a
person suffers from any of the above
disqualifications, then he shall be disentitled
from claiming relief against being declared as
a history-sheeter. It is relevant to note that
in Diwan Singh(supra), while granting relief
to the petitioner therein, it was observed that
the petitioner therein was a senior citizen
against whom the last conviction was in the
year 2003, and the last case registered
against him was in the year 2007, while his
case had come up for final adjudication in the
year 2022.
9. Thus, this Court, in the light of the judgment
rendered in Sanjay (Supra) and Rakesh Alias Rekhraj
(supra), allows the instant petition; accordingly, while
quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated
05.12.1990 (Annexure-1) passed by the
Superintendent of Police, Sirohi along with entire
proceedings pursuant thereto, the respondents are
directed to strike out the name of the petitioner from
the history-sheet maintained at the concerned police
station. All pending applications stand disposed of."
9. The enunciation made in the case referred supra, the instant
petition is allowed and the order dated 04.04.2013, passed by the
Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh along with entire
proceedings pursuant thereto is quashed and set aside, the
[2025:RJ-JD:17886] (10 of 10) [CRLMP-831/2025]
respondents are directed to strike out the name of the petitioner
from the history-sheet maintained at the concerned police station.
All pending applications stand disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
39-divya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
