MOHAMMAD TAHIR Vs. THE STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 31.7.2013 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Balrampur and also for issuing a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to cease the continuous surveillance of the petitioner on the basis of history sheet No. 51 -A/2002 dated 23.1.2002 opened at police station Tulsipur, District Balrampur; and also deleting the name of the petitioner from register No. 8 vide history sheet No. 51 -A/2002 dated 23.1.2002 opened at police station Tulsipur, District Balrampur.

(2.) IT has been mentioned in the petition that on the basis of FIR lodged in case crime No. 62 of 1998, under Sections 394, 120 -B IPC, Police Station Kotwali Uttaraula, District Balrampur the charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner. It was further submitted that due to political rivalry, the petitioner was challaned under Section 110(g) Cr. P.C. vide report dated 23.1.2002. The challani report was cancelled by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tulsipur after perusal of record. The petitioner has no criminal history except case crime No. 62 of 1998, under Sections 394/120 -B IPC, and vide judgment and order dated 1.9.2011 the petitioner was acquitted in the above case.

(3.) IT was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a law abiding and qualified citizen. He is a registered medical practitioner and has never been involved in other criminal cases except, mentioned above. The name of the petitioner was included in register No. 8, meant for keeping surveillance over people, whose name found place in the register. The petitioner is being illegally deprived of the fundamental rights, privacy and freedom of movement, as guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(d) and also under Section 21 of the Constitution of India. It was further submitted that the provisions of para 228 of U.P. Police Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) is not applicable in the present case of the petitioner, and the case of the petitioner is not covered under any of the class, as provided under para 228 of the Regulations. It was further submitted that Regulation 231 of the Regulations provides that history sheet of class 'A' shall remain in surveillance for atleast two consecutive years for which they have spent no part in jail. It was further submitted that para 240 of the Regulations casts an onerous duty on public prosecutor to inform the Superintendent of Police about the acquittal of a person as to whether history sheet was required to be opened or to be continued. In the instant case, there is no such information from the Public Prosecutor.