INDER SINGH MALIK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition Inder Singh malik seeks issuances of an appropriate writ under Article 226 of e Constitution of India for quashing the history sheet opened by the police authorities in accordance with the Punjab Police Rules 1934 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and further quashing of the entry made in the Surveillance Register as per Rule 23.9.

(2.) Petitioner has averred that he is a youngman of 26 years of age. He has passed his higher-secondary examination and is at present Pradhan of Gaon Sabha, village Masudpur, Delhi. It is his case that the Station House Officer of Police Station Mehrauli respondent No. 4 (herein) has got opened history-sheet illegally and malafide and had the recommendation approved for opening the same and keeping his name on the Surveillance Register from respondent no. 3, the Deputy Commissioner of Police Hauz Khas New Delhi in violation of the provisions of rules in Chapter 23 of the Rules. The respondents have filed an affidavit of Shri Jaipal Singh, Station House Officer, Police Station Mehrauli in opposition to the writ petition. The opening of the history-sheet on 6th September 1984 has been admitted. It is further admitted that the name of the petitioner was brought on the Surveillance Register by the orders of the Deputy Commissioner of Police. South District New Delhi. The grounds on which this action had been taken have been enumerated in the return. In nut-shell the case of the respondents is that there arc 5 criminal cases pending against the petitioner. In the 6th case he has been acquitted and in the 7th he has been discharged. According to them "he is a very active criminal of the area and needs constant watch. It will be needless to say that he is a person who forcibly lifted an innocent and poor girl namely Miss Siromani Barala from the market alongwith his associates in his car and thereafter committed rape on her and this attracted a lot of publicity in the press and otherwise." I may note at the outset that according to the petitioner the prosecutrix namely Miss Siromani Barala has not identified him (the petitioner) in the identification parade. That averment of the petitioner has however not been denied in the return.

(3.) I have noticed the rival factual contentions of the parties only for the purpose of appreciating the legal submissions. I am not assessing the facts as indeed I cannot, while exercising the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is not necessary to notice all the legal pleas raised in the petition and also urged before me by Mr. O.N. Vohra learned counsel for the petitioner as in my view the petition can be disposed of on a very short ground. On my asking Mr. Sodhi, learned counsel for the respondents produced the officials records maintained by the police authorities in respect of the petitioner herein. It was for the first time that it was suggested on September 6 1984 by the Station House Officer, Police Station Mehrauli that the History-Sheet of the petitioner be opened. In that note after enumerating certain cases against the petitioner which are pending trial it was said "He is continuously involved in the commission of crime since 1976. It has been very essential to keep close watch over his activities. Keeping in view the above facts, it is proposed that his name be entered in Survillance Register and bil name may be kept on history-sheet bundle A The Assistant Commissioner of Police Hauz Khas to whom this note had been marked agreed with the suggestion by saying "He deserves to be kept under Surveillance by the Police. Approval may please be accorded to enter his name in Register No. 10 Part II and H.S. to bundle 'A'.