GANESH THAKURATHI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri A.S. Rawat, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. C.S. Rawat, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Amit Bhatt, the learned Addl. G.A. for the respondents. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for the quashing of history sheet No. 22-A dated 23 rd October, 2001 opened in Police Station Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar under Regulation 228 of the U.P. Police Regulations. The petitioner contends that he is a permanent resident of Village Mahatgaon, Chakarpur, Police Station Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, doing social work and is also espousing the cause of the weaker section of the society. He is a member of the Bhartiya Janta Party and presently holding the post of the State General Secretary of the Youth Wing of the B.J.P. Between 1998-2001, the petitioner was a student studying in a Degree College at Khatima and, during this period, eight criminal cases were lodged against him, the details of which are specified hereunder:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_28_ACC78_2012_1.html</FRM>

(2.) On the basis of these criminal cases being lodged against the petitioner, a history sheet No.22-A was opened against him under Regulation 228 of the Police Regulations. In paragraph 4 of the writ petition, it has been alleged that in all these eight cases, the petitioner has been acquitted honourably by the trial court. Inspite of being acquitted, the petitioner alleges that the history sheet is still opened and continuous surveillance upon him is being conducted by the police without any cogent reasons. Consequently, the present writ petition has been filed for the quashing of the history sheet.

(3.) The respondents have filed a counter affidavit contending that the history sheet was opened under Regulation 228 on account of the pendency of eight criminal cases pending against the petitioner and that the history sheet was opened in accordance with the law. The respondents, however, admitted that the petitioner has been acquitted in all the eight cases. In paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit, the respondents have further admitted that after 2001, no criminal case has been registered against the petitioner at the concerned police station.