Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vinod Arya vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 April, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:15421]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 870/2025
Vinod Arya S/o Shri Rajesh Arya, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
Pabupura, Police Station Airport, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Firoz Khan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. VS Rajpurohit, Dy.G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
03/03/2025
1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 528 BNSS has
been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
"It is therefore respectfully prayed that this
petition may kindly be allowed and the order dated
25.07.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of
Police, Jodhpur East may kindly be quahsed and the
history sheet opened against the petitioner may kindly
be quahsed.
Any other order which is just and proper in the
facts and circumstances, of the case 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 25.07.2024, the
Station House Officer, P.s. Airport, Jodhpur East, upon the
application received from the Deputy Police Commissioner, District
Jodhpur East passed the impugned order, whereby the direction
was given to open the history sheet against the petitioner.
[2025:RJ-JD:15421] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-870/2025]
3. The details of cases registered against the petitioner in
the District Jodhpur are as under:
Sl. FIR No. Offence U/Sec. Decision/Result
No. Police Station
1. 723/26.12.2005 392 of IPC. PT
Udaimandir
2. 218/04.09.2010 323, 341, 324 of Compromise vide order
Ratanada IPC dated 15.12.2010
3. 263/04.11.2011 302, 307, 323, acquittal vide order
Ratanada 341, 147, 148, dated 06.10.2015
149 of IPC
4. 344/19.11.2017 341, 323, PT
Kudi Bhagtasani 392/34 of IPC
5. 159/08.04.2019 452, 341, 323, PT
Ratanada 336 of IPC
6. 356/04.10.2012 420, 467, 466, PT
Udaimandir 471, 120B of IPC
7. 221/10.10.2022 447, 448, 440, Pending Investigation
Airport 420, 120B of IPC
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 (hereinafter
to be referred as 'the Rules of 1965') as well as definition of the
Habitual offender under the Rajasthan Habitual Offenders Act,
1953. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, 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
of 1965.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that
as per Rule 4.9 of the Rules of 1965, the concerned officer should
[2025:RJ-JD:15421] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-870/2025]
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. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Sanjay
Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition
No.792/2016) along with other connected matters 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
[2025:RJ-JD:15421] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-870/2025]
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.
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 person is having more than 10 cases, in
totality, against him, irrespective of the result. (The
[2025:RJ-JD:15421] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-870/2025]
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 judgments rendered in
Sanjay (supra) and Rakesh Alias Rekhraj (supra), allows the
instant petition; accordingly, while quashing and setting aside the
impugned order dated 25.07.2024 passed by the Deputy
Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur East 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.
10. All the pending applications stand disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
80-Samvedana/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
