The Allahabad High Court while disposing of the petition observed that there is no provision under U.P Police Regulations for closure of a history sheet of Class-’B’. Regulation 233 clearly provides that a history sheet which is only a record of information need never be considered as closed.
The Division Bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Kshitij Shailendra passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Aftab Alam.
The petition has been filed seeking a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing History Sheet opened against the petitioner at Police Station Shahganj, District Allahabad with a further prayer to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to keep surveillance on the petitioner in pursuance of the said history sheet.
A First Information Report dated 04.05.1998 was lodged against the petitioner and one Chhedi Lal Gupta that was registered at Case under Section 489 IPC at Police Station Audyogik Kshetra Naini, District Allahabad.
The allegation against the accused persons was that they were found in possession of forged or counterfeit currency notes.
Investigation was conducted by the police and a charge sheet dated 07.07.1999 was submitted against both the accused persons, on which, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII, Allahabad took cognizance on 06.06.2000 and the petitioner was summoned to face trial.
Challenging the proceedings of aforesaid criminal case, the petitioner filed an Application U/S 482 (Aftab Alam Vs State of U.P and others) before the Court. The said application was allowed on 06.09.2018.
It is pleaded in the petition that the petitioner filed a certified copy of the order dated 06.09.2018 before the concerned Magistrate, who, in compliance of the order of the Court, quashed the proceedings of Case.
The case of the petitioner, as pleaded in the writ petition, is that apart from the aforesaid solitary case registered, no other case is pending against him, however, the history sheet is still being kept open, which is not just and proper. Application of Regulation 228 of ‘U.P Police Regulations’ (the Regulations) has also been pleaded and the main ground for claiming reliefs is quashing of the proceedings of the solitary case, as aforesaid.
The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is primarily two fold:
(i) There being solitary case registered against the petitioner, the proceedings whereof have already been quashed pursuant to the order dated 06.09.2018 passed in Application No 482 No 9185 of 2009 and the order of Magistrate dated 22.11.2018, there is no justification to keep the history sheet No 21-B open; and
(ii) As per Regulation 228 of the Regulations, history sheet can be opened only for persons who are or likely to become habitual criminals or abettors of such criminals and in so far as Class ‘B’ history sheets are concerned, they are issued for confirmed and professional criminals of the categories specified in the said Regulations, whereas the petitioner does not fall within any of the Clause/ sub-clauses of the said Regulations and, hence, the history sheet is liable to be quashed.
Per contra, Manju Thakur, AGA-1 along with G.P Singh, AGA-1, have vehemently opposed the writ petition and submitted that there being no provision under any law including U.P Police Regulations whereunder the police authorities are under any obligation or compulsion to close the history sheet, the prayer for quashing the history sheet is thoroughly misconceived and cannot be granted.
They further submitted that apart from Regulation 228, two more Regulations, i.e Regulations 232 and 234 need to be looked into which provide that the history sheet of Class ‘B’ will remain continuously open and the concerned history sheeter would remain under surveillance until his death.
The Court observed that,
While the Court is satisfied that opening of the history in the year 2009 against the petitioner was not illegal inasmuch as, by that time, there was a case registered against the petitioner at Crime No118 of 1998 in which cognizance was also taken by the concerned Magistrate in the year 2000, however, the proceedings of said case were quashed after eighteen years in the year 2018, as aforesaid, and, therefore, the Court finds that the grounds for claiming reliefs as prayed in the petition are based upon subsequent developments.
The Court, therefore, proceeds to examine as to whether the history sheet can be closed or quashed or whether any other course recognized under the law is still open for the police authorities.
A bare perusal of Regulation 228 would show that the language used therein is unambiguous and there is a clear mandate that history sheets can be opened only for persons who are or likely to become habitual criminals or abettors of such criminals. Classification of history sheets in Class ‘A’ and Class ‘B’ is also clearly spelt out and since challenge in the petition has been laid to history sheet of Class ‘B’, sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 228 needs a look that clearly provides that such history sheet can be opened for ‘confirmed and professional criminals’ who commit crimes other than dacoity, burglary, cattle-theft etc, as described in the said subregulation.
The Court has respectfully perused the judgments, relied upon by the petitioners, and it transpires that the Court in those cases took note of the circumstances under which history sheets were opened against the concerned offenders and, for the reasons stated in the judgments, history sheet was either directed to be closed or the authorities were directed to wipe out the name of the concerned offender from the surveillance register. However, in this case, the question to be considered is as to whether the history sheet of Class- ‘B’ can be closed forever or can it be quashed in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The Court further observed that,
In view of the above discussion and the admitted position of fact that apart from solitary case registered at Crime No118 of 1998, proceedings whereof have already been quashed, there being no other case registered against the petitioner, the Deputy Inspector General of Police of the Range (D.I.G concerned) has to record special reasons as to why despite quashing of the solitary case, the petitioner is still required to be kept under continuous surveillance.
For the said purpose, it is open for the petitioner to submit a representation before the D.I.G concerned bringing on record all the facts and proceedings which are sufficient for the D.I.G to form an opinion to keep or not to keep the petitioner under surveillance and to make relevant entry on the history sheet as per Regulations 232 and 233.
The Court also noted that apart from seeking a relief of certiorari requesting quashing of history sheet of Class ‘B’, the petitioner has prayed for a direction for the respondents not to keep him under surveillance and the basis of petitioner’s claim is apparently quashing of the solitary Criminal Case No1087 of 2006, as noted above.
While reserving the judgment in the case on 06.02.2024, the learned counsel for the petitioner was permitted to implement the Deputy Inspector General of Police of the Range to the writ petition. Necessary impleadment was carried out on the same day.
In view of the above discussion, while no writ of certiorari can be issued quashing the history sheet opened against the petitioner, the petitioner is certainly entitled to submit a representation before the D.I.G concerned, as noted above, the Court also observed.
Therefore, the Court gave liberty to the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation before the D.I.G concerned along with certified copy of the order, ventilating his grievance, as per the observations made in the order, the Court disposed of the petition with a direction that, in case, such a representation is filed within a period of one month from the date of delivery of the judgment, the D.I.G concerned shall pass a reasoned and speaking order strictly in consonance with Regulations 232 and 233 and any other relevant Regulation of the U.P Police Regulations, after dealing with each and every ground raised before him by the petitioner through his representation, within a period of next two months after providing opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and after summoning relevant records from the concerned police station.