INDRAJEET Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH the instant petition the petitioner has challenged the impugned order, annexure No. 6, dated 17.7.2011 passed by respondent No. 2, S.P. Hathras (Mahamaya Nagar). The brief facts relevant for disposal of the petition are that in the year 2003 the petitioner was implicated in a criminal case registered as case crime No. 102 of 2003, under Section 392, IPC, P.S. Hasayan, District Hathras. In this case the petitioner was acquitted by the court of Judicial Magistrate, Hathras on 28.5.2008. Further a recommendation was made by respondent No. 2 on 9.3.2007 for registration of a case under Section 3 of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970. In pursuance of a notice the petitioner submitted his objection and vide order dated 25.6.2008, the Additional District Magistrate, Hathras dropped the proceedings and discharged the notice. The petitioner has further contended that proceedings under Section 107/116, Cr.P.C. were also initiated on the basis of beat report No. 27 and also NCR No. 28 of 2007, under Section 504, 506, IPC was registered against the petitioner. It has been averred that in all such cases either the petitioner has been acquitted or proceedings have been dropped against him. Copies of judgment and orders in the said proceedings have been annexed with the writ petition. Further contention of the petitioner is that history sheet No. 21A was opened against the petitioner at P.S. Hasayan and since no criminal proceedings were pending or initiated for a considerably long period, the petitioner moved respondent No. 2 praying that history sheet opened against him be closed. He moved a representation to respondent No. 2 on 18.11.2010, copy of which has been annexed as annexure No. 3 to the writ petition. When no action was taken on the representation, the petitioner filed a criminal misc. writ petition No. 9273 of 2011, Indrajeet Vs. State of U.P. and another seeking direction against respondent No. 2 for deciding the representation. This court vide order dated 23.5.2011 was pleased to direct respondent No. 2 that in case the petitioner prefers a representation before him along with self attested copy of the writ petition within two weeks', the authority concerned shall consider it according to law and pass appropriate orders within two months'. The petitioner has further submitted that in compliance of the order dated 23.5.2011 he moved a representation before respondent No. 2 on 31.5.2011 along with self attested copy of the petition. However, vide impugned order dated 17.7.2011 respondent No. 2 has rejected the representation without considering the matter of the petitioner. The petitioner has stated that he has no criminal history. However, respondent No. 2 has illegally rejected his representation and the police is harassing the petitioner. The copy of the order dated 10.6.2011, referred to in the impugned order, has not been made available to the petitioner. There is no allegation against the petitioner that he is involved in criminal activities or has been abetting the criminal activities, therefore, there cannot be any justification in continuing the history sheet against the petitioner.

(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA and have perused the record.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from the perusal of the impugned order it is evident that respondent No. 2 has passed the order without due application of mind arbitrarily. In the impugned order respondent No. 2 has mentioned that in compliance of the order of the High Court he summoned a report from SHO, Hasayan and in the report of police station dated 10.6.2011 the SHO has informed that the petitioner is a history sheeter against whom history sheet No. 21A has been opened. He is young and was involved in an offence of loot as a result whereof his history sheet was opened. It appears that there is a mention in the report that there are complaints against the history sheeter that he has relations with criminals and in this connection a proceeding under Gangster Act was initiated. Respondent No. 2 has further recorded in the impugned order that there is beat information in this regard and according to the beat information history sheeter (petitioner) is a quarrelsome person and because of his behaviour, the peace and tranquillity in the village remains disturbed. On these grounds respondent No. 2 has found that in the interest of justice as well in public interest the continuance of the surveillance of the petitioner is necessary and for this purpose his history sheet should be kept open. Thus, it is apparent that without any material on record the respondent No. 2 has passed the impugned order without assigning convincing reasons and the impugned order, as such, is bad in law and is not sustainable.