RAMESH KUMAR Vs. STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Station House Officer, Police Station Farash Bazar, Shahadara, Delhi, opened a history sheet against the petitioner which in terms of the counter filed by the respondent Shri Ram Meena S.H.O. Police Station Farash Bazar was approved by DCP (East) on 28th February, 1984 and thereafter his 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 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 he 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 or 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.) IN his rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has submitted that in F.I.R. No. 598 under section 61/1/14, Excise Act, he was prosecuted for being in possession of 1/4th bottle of English wine and the case is still pending in the court. He has denied that he was ever arrested under section 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and has admitted that in F.I.R. No. 660 dated 3.11.1975 under section 12/9/55, Gambling Act, he was fined a sum of Rs. 50/-.