JAI KARAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Art. 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Sec. 482 of Cr. P.C. the petitioner is seeking quashing of the order passed by the Competent Officer of Police Station Sultan Puri, whereby the name of the petitioner was entered in Part II (Clause (b) of Surveillance Register maintained under Rule 23.4(3) of the Punjab Police Rules. The petitioner also seeks deletion of his name from the history sheet opened under Rule 23.9(2) of the Punjab Police Rules.

(2.) In brief, the facts of the case are that a case under Sec. 308/323/506/120B/34 of Penal Code was registered against the petitioner vide FIR No.1071/2006 in Police Station Sultanpuri, Delhi. Vide order dated 21.08.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge - 1 (Outer), Rohini Courts, Delhi, the petitioner was acquitted from the charges framed against him in the said case. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been falsely implicated in 9 different cases registered vide separate FIRs in different Police Stations and despite being acquitted or discharged in all the said 9 cases, the competent officer of Police Station Sultanpuri has entered the name of the petitioner in Part II (Clause (b) of Surveillance register maintained under Rule 23.4(3) of the Punjab Police Rules. That's why the petitioner has filed the instant petition for seeking deletion of his name from the Surveillance register.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the names of only those persons are required to be entered in Surveillance registered, who are reasonably believed to be habitual offenders or receivers of stolen property. It is further contended that the mandate of Rule 23.4(3)(b) of the Punjab Police Rules comes with a rider which is explained in Rule 23.5 of the Punjab Police Rules, according to which, prior to entering the name of any person in Part II of the Surveillance register, a history sheet is required to be opened and if for the entries in the history sheet, the Superintendent is of the opinion that such person should be subjected to surveillance, only then his name is required to be entered in that register. The names of the persons, who have never been convicted or placed on security for good behaviour shall not be entered until the Superintendent has recorded definite reasons for doing so. It is the submission of the petitioner that the petitioner has been acquitted in all the cases pending against him and the name of the petitioner is entered in Surveillance register, without recording any definite reasons thereof. It is the further submission of the petitioner that the reasonable belief of a police officer that the suspect is a habitual offender or is a person habitually addicted to crime is sufficient to justify such action, however mere belief is not sufficient and the belief must be reasonable and on reasonable grounds.