Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Bhanwar Lal vs State And Ors. (2025:Rj-Jd:18600) on 26 March, 2025

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2025:RJ-JD:18600]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2070/2017

Bhanwar Lal Son Of Ishwar Lal, By Caste Suthar, Resident Of
Machiya Bhainsa, Kamed, Khamnor Police Station, District
Rajsamand.
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.       The State Of Rajasthan
2.       The Superintendent Of Police, Rajsamand.
3.       S.h.o., Khamnor Police Station, District Rajsamand.
                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Ratish Bhatnagar
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. VS Rajpurohit, Dy.G.A. with
                                 Mr. RS Bhati, AGA



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

26/03/2025

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

been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Misc. Petition may kindly be allowed and the order dated 11.12.2017 issued by the respondent No.2 and further proceeding thereof initiated by the respondent No.3 in compliance of order dated 11.01.2017 may kindly be quashed and set aside in the interest of Justice."

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

counsel for the petitioner are that the SHO, Police Station

Khamnor, District Rajsamand and the Circle Officer, Nathdwara

sent a letter to grant permission to open history-sheet of the

petitioner pursuant to total four cases pending against him at that

[2025:RJ-JD:18600] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-2070/2017]

time. The Superintendent of Police, Rajsamand upon receipt of

the aforesaid application, passed the impugned order dated

11.01.2017, whereby permission was granted to open history

sheet against the petitioner.

3. The details of cases registered against the petitioner are as

under:-

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

1. 61/1995 PS 498-A, 306 of IPC Acquitted by the Khamnor competent court of Rajsamand

2. 206/2013 PS 143, 148, 149, Pending under Khamnor 459, 323, 325, consideration 120-B of IPC

3. 17/2014 PS 143, 149, 447, 379 Pending under Khamnor of IPC consideration

4. 104/2015 PS 447, 379 of IPC Pending under Khamnor consideration

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:18600] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-2070/2017]

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. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out total four

cases registered against the petitioner, he has been acquitted in 1

case and 3 cases are pending under consideration. The petitioner

is not a habitual offender and last case was registered against him

in the year 2015.

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

[2025:RJ-JD:18600] (4 of 6) [CRLMP-2070/2017]

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 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

[2025:RJ-JD:18600] (5 of 6) [CRLMP-2070/2017]

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, 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. In the case at hand, the petitioner has not been convicted in

any of the case registered against him; out of four cases

registered, he has been acquitted in 1 case and the remaining

three cases are pending under consideration; the last case was

registered against him in the year 2015. 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

11.01.2017 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Rajsamand

along with entire proceedings pursuant thereto, the respondents

[2025:RJ-JD:18600] (6 of 6) [CRLMP-2070/2017]

are directed to strike out the name of the petitioner from the