Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mahendra @ Banti vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:16385) on 27 March, 2025

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2025:RJ-JD:16385]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                  S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2570/2025

Mahendra @ Banti S/o Bhakraram Vishnoi, Aged About 40 Years,
R/o Jaleli Fojdar, P.s. Dangiyaswas, Dist. Jodhpur,raj.
                                                                         ----Petitioner
                                        Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.       The Station House Officer, Dangiyawas, Dist. Jodhpur
                                                                      ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)             :     Mr. Ashok Khillery
For Respondent(s)             :     Mr. VS Rajpurohit, Dy.G.A.



                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

27/03/2025

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

been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

"(A) The record of the police in relation to the petitioner may kindly be summoned. (B) The letter dated 14.03.2014 issued by the Respondent No.1 should be quashed and set aside. (C) The respondents may kindly be restrained from initiating history sheet proceeding against the petitioner and also restrained from adding the name of the petitioner in the Surveillance register."

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

counsel for the petitioner are that on 23.01.2014, the SHO, Police

Station Dangiyawas, District Jodhpur sent a letter to grant

permission to open history-sheet of the petitioner pursuant to

total 17 cases pending against him at that time. The Deputy

Commissioner of Police, upon receipt of the aforesaid application,

passed the impugned order dated 14.03.2014, whereby

[2025:RJ-JD:16385] (2 of 7) [CRLMP-2570/2025]

permission was granted to open history sheet against the

petitioner.

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

under:

Sl. Case Police Result of Decision/ No. Number/Date Station Police Result /Sections

1. 419/27.12.200 Pratapnagar Charge Pending Trial 6 Sections 41 Sheet and 23 of IPC No.12/27.0 1.2007

2. 64/21.06.2008 Kherapa Charge Pending Trial Section 406 of Sheet IPC No.9/28.09.

3. 336/10.12.200 Chopasani Charge Pending Trial 8 Section 489 Housing Sheet ABC IPC and Board 3/25 of Arms Act

4. 437/11.12.200 Pratapnagar Charge Convicted vide 8 Section 8/8 of Sheet judgment dated NDPS Act No.156/14. 12.12.2015 05.2009

5. 115/22.04.200 Ratanada Charge Pending Trial 9 Section 309 Sheet of IPC No.87/30.0 4.2009

6. 425/21.11.201 Udaimandir Charge Pending Trial 1 Section 224 Sheet of IPC No.77/13.0 3.2013

7. 159/01.11.201 Luni Charge Pending Trial 2 Sections 323, Sheet 353, 307 and No.20/24.0 120B of IPC 4.2014

8. 188/01.11.201 Dangiyawas Charge Acquitted vide 2 Sections 8/15 Sheet judgment dated NDPS Act No.36/24.0 dated 4.2013 31.05.2017 36A/31.12.

9. 122/13.05.201 Ratanada Charge Pending Trial 3 Sections 3/25 Sheet

[2025:RJ-JD:16385] (3 of 7) [CRLMP-2570/2025]

of Arms Act No.96/30.0 5.2013

10. 246/14.05.201 Pratapnagar Charge Pending Trial 3 Sections 79, Sheet 411, 420, 467, No.351/18.
     468, 471, 482                               03.2013
      and 120B of
          IPC
 11. 71/01.06.2013              Luni              Charge          Pending Trial
      Sections 32,                                 Sheet
      353, 224 and                              No.04/01.0
      120 B of IPC                                1.2014

 12. 154/24.10.201 Dangiyawas                     Charge          Pending Trial
      3 Sections 07,                               Sheet
      353, 120 B of                             No.09/14.0
     IPC and 3 PDPP                               3.2014
           Act
 13. 252/24.10.201           Ratanada             Charge          Pending Trial
     3 Sections 332,                              Sheet
        35 of IPC                               No.139/30.
                                                 05.2014
 14. 253/24.10.201           Ratanada             Charge          Pending Trial
     3 Sections 332,                              Sheet
     353 and 307 of                             No.140/30.
           IPC                                   05.2014
 15. 542/26.10.200         Pratapnagar            Charge          Pending Trial
      1 of Sections                                Sheet
     147, 148, 149,                             No.82/16.0
     307 of IPC and                               4.2014
      3/25 of Arms
           Act
 16. 114/14.12.201         Dangiyawas             Charge          Pending Trial
     7 Sections 341,                              Sheet
      323, 27, 427,                             No.113/30.
     379 and 143 of                              11.2018
           IPC

 17. 67/15.07.2020          Nikumbh               Charge          Pending Trial
     Sections 8/15         Chittorgarh             Sheet
      of NDPS Act                               No.10/04.0
                                                  2.2021
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

[2025:RJ-JD:16385] (4 of 7) [CRLMP-2570/2025]

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. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out total 17

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

case, in 1 case, he has been convicted and 15 cases are pending

trial. The reason for high number of cases is dispute of the

petitioner with his relatives, due to which false cases were lodged.

The petitioner is not a habitual offender and last case was

registered against him in the year 2020.

7. 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.

[2025:RJ-JD:16385] (5 of 7) [CRLMP-2570/2025]

8. Heard learned counsel for both parties as well as perused the

record of the case.

9. 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 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

[2025:RJ-JD:16385] (6 of 7) [CRLMP-2570/2025]

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

[2025:RJ-JD:16385] (7 of 7) [CRLMP-2570/2025]

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.

10. In the case at hand, the petitioner has been convicted in only

one case registered against him; out of 17 cases registered, he

has been acquitted in 1 case; 14 cases are pending trial; the last

case was registered against him in the year 2017. 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 14.03.2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, 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.

11. All the pending applications stand disposed of.

(FARJAND ALI),J 323-divya/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)