Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Aslam Shah vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:19562) on 23 April, 2025

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:19562]

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                        JODHPUR
                S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1959/2025

Aslam Shah S/o Peer Jamal Shah, Aged About 67 Years, R/o
Jalalsar, P.s. Jamsar, Dist. Bikaner,raj.
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The Superintendent Of Police
         Bikaner
2.       Station House Officer, P.s. Kotgate, Dist. Bikaner
                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. D.K. Gaur
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Narendra Singh, PP



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

23/04/2025

1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 528 BNSS has

been filed with a prayer that the impugned order dated

10.10.2000 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Bikaner

directing opening of the history sheet of the petitioner be quashed

and set aside.

2. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by learned

counsel for the petitioner are that on 10.10.2000, the Station

House Officer, P.S. Kotgate, District Bikaner, upon the application

received from the Superintendent of Police, District Bikaner passed

the impugned order, whereby the direction was given to open the

history sheet against the petitioner.

3. The details of cases registered against the petitioner in the

District Bikaner are as under:-

[2025:RJ-JD:19562] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-1959/2025]

SI No. FIR No. Offence U/s Police Decision/ Police Station Result Station

1. 8/ 13.02.88 307, 354 & 450 Jamsar Acquitted on IPC 27.11.11 by ADJ, Bikaner

2. 323/ 307, 341, 147, Sadar, Acquitted on the 12.03.96 148 IPC Bikaner basis of compromise on 27.07.11 by ACJM No.2, Bikaner

3. 247/ 302, 323, 147, Kotgate Acquitted on 31.08.00 148 & 149 IPC 10.07.08 by ADJ (FT) No.1, Bikaner

4. 112/ 323, 147, 336, Jamsar Acquitted on the 01.12.03 & 171(D) IPC & basis of 131 of Public compromise on Representatives 07.09.2012 by Act ACJ/JD/JM No.2, Bikaner

5. 19/ 04.02.04 147, 148, 149, Jamsar Acquitted on the 323, 325 IPC & basis of 131 of Public compromise on Representatives 07.09.2012 by Act ACJ/JD/JM No.2, Bikaner

6. 157/ 364, 147, 148, Jamsar Not charge-

11.11.95 149 & 323 IPC sheeted by police

7. Complaint 110 SDM Bikaner Bound on CrPC/12.4.05 10.05.06

8. Complaint 110 CrPC / SDM Bikaner Bound on 20.2.07 10.07.07

9. Complaint 107 & 116(3) SDM Bikaner Pending CrPC/6.12.07

10. Complaint 110 SDM Bikaner Bound CrPC/10.1.10

11. Complaint 110 SDM Bikaner Pending CrPC/15.3.11

12. Complaint 107 & 116(3) SDM Bikaner Bound CrPC/17.10.13

13. Complaint 110 CrPC/1.7.15 SDM Bikaner Bound

14. Complaint 110 SDM Bikaner -

CrPC/25.5.16

[2025:RJ-JD:19562] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-1959/2025]

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

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 the parties at Bar 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

[2025:RJ-JD:19562] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-1959/2025]

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.

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 surveillance register, while declaring hima 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 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

[2025:RJ-JD:19562] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-1959/2025]

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 10.10.2000 passed by the Superintendent

of Police, Bikaner 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. Stay petition as well as all the pending applications stand

disposed of.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J 93-divya/-