Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Balbeer Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:16542) on 21 March, 2025

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2025:RJ-JD:16542]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2417/2025

Balbeer Singh S/o Shri Pratap Singh Rathore, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Rajput Mohalla, Near Govt. Senior Secondary School,
Rawla Chowk, Hamirgarh, Dist. Bhilwara
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
         Of Home, Govt. Of Raj. Secretarait, Jaipur
2.       Director General Of Police, Headquarter, Jaipur
3.       Inspector General Of Police, Udaipur Range, Udaipur
4.       The Superintendent Of Police, Bhilwara
5.       The Station House Officer, P.s. Hamirgarh, Dist. Bhilwara
                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Raghuveer Singh
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, Dy.G.A.



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

21/03/2025

1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has

been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order passed by Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara for opening history-sheet against the petitioner may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents may kindly be directed to close the history sheet of the petitioner."

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

learned counsel for the petitioner are that, the Superintendent of

Police, Bhilwara, upon the application received from the Station

House Officer, Police Station Hamirgarh, District Bhilwara passed

[2025:RJ-JD:16542] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-2417/2025]

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:

Sl. FIR No. Offence U/Sec. Decision/Result No. Police Station

1. 150/2013 323, 341, 34 and Challan No.155/2013 dated 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act dated 12.11.2013 30.09.2013 PS Hamirgarh

2. 69/2022 dated 341, 506, 323 IPC Challan No.98/2022 10.04.2022 PS and Section 3(1) dated 01.06.2022 Hamirgarh (R)(S), 3(2)(Va) SC/ST Act

3. 172/2023 341, 323, 325, Under Investigation dated 307, 120-B of IPC 16.07.2023 PS Hamirgarh

4. 180/2024 189(2), 121(1), Challan No.216/2024 dated 132, 352, 351(2) dated 30.12.2024 10.09.2024 PS (3), 61(2)(A) BNS Hamirgarh and Section 3(1) (R)(S), 3(2)(Va) 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 (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

[2025:RJ-JD:16542] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-2417/2025]

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 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

[2025:RJ-JD:16542] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-2417/2025]

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 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 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,

[2025:RJ-JD:16542] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-2417/2025]

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 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara

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 258-chhavi/-