[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mahiram vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:13336) on 18 March, 2026

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2026:RJ-JD:13336]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1339/2026

Mahiram S/o Heera Ram, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of
Radaka Bera Padiyal, Police Station Bhojasar, District Phalodi,
Rajasthan.
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                          Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Superintendent Of Police,
         District Phalodi, Rajasthan.
2.       The Superintendent Of Police, District Phalodi, Rajasthan.
3.       The Station House Officer, Bhojasar, District Phalodi,
         Rajasthan.
                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)             :     Mr. Ashok Khillery
For Respondent(s)             :     Mr. Ramesh Devasi, Dy.G.A.



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

18/03/2026

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 05.05.2023 issued by the Respondent no. 2 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 is the Surveillance register."

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

learned counsel for the petitioner are that on 05.05.2023, the

Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur Rural, upon the application

(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 03:10:11 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:13336] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-1339/2026]

received from the Station House Officer, Police Station Bhojasar,

District Jodhpur Rural 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 Phalodi & Jodhpur are as under:

S. No. FIR No. Police District Decision/ Station Result

1. 422/2012 Phalodi Phalodi Pending

2. 52/2011 Phalodi Phalodi acquitted

3. 281/2011 Dechu Phalodi pending

4. 282/2011 Dechu Phalodi pending

5. 283/2011 Dechu Phalodi pending

6. 159/2021 Phalodi Phalodi acquitted

7. 236/2012 Lohawat Phalodi acquitted

8. 95/2012 Bap Phalodi acquitted

9. 178/2015 Phalodi Phalodi pending

10. 526/2003 Mahamandir Jodhpur acquitted

11. 155/2005 Mandore Jodhpur acquitted

12. 36/2007 Bhojasar Phalodi acquitted

13. 364/2006 Udai Mandir Jodhpur acquitted

14. 201/2007 Mahamandir Jodhpur acquitted

15. 176/2010 Phalodi Phalodi acquitted

16. 26/2009 Phalodi Phalodi pending

17. 136/2009 Phalodi Phalodi acquitted

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

(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 03:10:11 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:13336] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-1339/2026]

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 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:-

(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 03:10:11 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:13336] (4 of 6) [CRLMP-1339/2026]

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 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

(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 03:10:11 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:13336] (5 of 6) [CRLMP-1339/2026]

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, 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 05.05.2023 (Annexure-1) passed by the

Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur Rural along with entire

proceedings pursuant thereto, the respondents are directed to

(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 03:10:11 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:13336] (6 of 6) [CRLMP-1339/2026]

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 140-Mamta/-