RAMESH KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Station House Officer, Police Station Farash Bazar, Shahdara, Delhi, opened a history sheet against the petitioner which in terms of the counter filed by the respondent Siri Ram Meena SHO Police Station Farash Bazar was approved by DCP (East) on 28th February 1984 and thereafter hit name was entered in register No. 10 part II of the Surveillance Register. The petitioner has made a grievance that there was no justification for opening the history sheet or putting his name in register No 10 part II. He has, therefore, prayed that the history sheet be quashed and his name be removed from register No. 10 Part II and he has also sought a direction to the effect that the finger prints, foot prints and the photographs of the petitioner which are kept on the records of the police station Farash Bazar be destroyed.

(2.) The petitioner has given large number of details in respect of the fact as to how he is being kept under surveillance and is taken to the police station and is made to undergo humiliation and indignities. He has also given details in respect of his assets, business and family. In short, the petitioner after detailing the facts about the background of the case in which be was once involved has submitted that the opening of history sheet against him is unwarranted, illegal and bad in the eyes of law and is against the provisions of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 Chapter XXIII under the heading 'Prevention of Offences'. According to him since there is no justification for opening the history sheet his surveillance is also unwarranted and illegal. The petitioner has further submitted that he is neither a habitual offender nor is he habitually addicted to crime nor is he an abettor of the same ; that he was falsely implicated by the police station Farash Bazar in a case under Section 61/1/14 of the Excise Act.

(3.) Respondent No. 5, SHO Police Station Farash Bazar has submitted a counter affidavit in which he has stated that the petitioner was involved in FIR No 660 dated 3-11-1975 under Section 12/9/55, Gambling Act, Police Station Shahdara, (2) FIR No. 598 dated 9-10-1979 under Section 61/1/14, Excise Act, Police Station Farash Bazar, Delhi and (3) under Section 107/151, Criminal Procedure Code . dated 8-11-1985. He has also stated that since the petitioner is a bad character he has been rightly kept under surveillance and his finger prints etc. are rightly retained under the provisions of the Police Rules. It is also submitted that the petitioner is a desperate person and gives refuge to habitual offenders and criminals; that the petitioner is associated with dreaded dacoiti, namely, Suresh Pandit, Sbambbu, Naresh Pandit, Sunil Tyagi, etc. and was also instrumental in arranging their defence and in pursuing the bail petitioners of these notorious dacoits. Respondent No. 5 has, however, denied that the petitioner is cither being harassed or being subjected to any indignities and humiliations.