SUNIL KUMAR SINGH Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BALLIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the report of respondent No. 2 given on 14-8-1994 as contained in annexure-1 of the writ petition and recommendation of respondent No. 4 dated 16-8-1994 for opening of History sheet and also order of respondent No. 1 permitting opening of the History Sheet against the petitioner and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to close the History Sheet of the petitioner.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner a young man of 22 years is politically active and had actively participated in the election to the U.P.Legislative Assembly and his family members had supported the candidature of one Gauri Bhaiya. The supporters of Ambika Chaudhary, on the other hand, made several attempts to prevail upon the petitioner to support the candidature of Ambika Chaudhary in the said election who was contesting on the Samajwadi Party ticket. Ambika Chaudhary was declared elected and was a member of ruling party at the relevant time. He is also related to A.P.Yadav respondent No. 3 who was Station Officer of police Station-Phephna District-Ballia. He was posted at the said police station at the behest of the sitting M.L.A.Ambika Chaudhary. It is alleged that the said Ambika Chaudhary in collusion with respondent No. 3 in the capacity of respondent No. 2 had managed opening of History Sheet-A against the petitioner under Regulation 228 of Police Regulations of fictitious and cooked up police report prepared by the respondent No. 3 in his capacity as respondent No. 2 which cannot be justified by any material on record and which has been opened for extraneous consideration only to harass and victimise the petitioner and his family. Annexure-1 is the photostat copy of History Sheet. It reveals that a report dated 14-8-1994 was given by the respondent No. 3 for permission to open History Sheet-A against the petitioner on one sided and biased report. Only two cases were shown against the petitioner. One was case crime No. 159 of 1994 under Section 379, 411, 468, 467, 419, 420, 474, I.P.C.on the basis of first information report of Shiv Shankar Singh dated 23-6-1974 and the second is case crime No. 61 of 1993 under Section 307, I.P.C.in respect of incident which occurred in the year 1993. In the report submitted by the respondent No. 3 it was also alleged that the petitioner is habitual thief involved in vehicle lifting and also a narcotic smuggler, cattle thief, smuggler and house trespasser which offences have not come to light due to political pressure of the petitioner. The aforesaid report was forwarded to Circle Officer, Ballia on 18-8-1994 and the same was recommended by Additional Superintendent of police-respondent No. 4 on 16-8-1994 and whereafter the superintendent of Police respondent No. 1 ordered for opening of History Sheet-A.It has been averred that the aforesaid direction is arbitrary without application of mind and in contravention of direction given in Regulation 228 of the police Regulations (in short Regulation). Regarding car lifting case it is stated that the petitioner is neither named in the F.I.R.nor recovery of stolen car was made from hint and he has been falsely implicated and involved in the said theft on belated statement of certain witnesses during investigation. Regarding case under Section 307, I.P.C.it is stated that in this case also the petitioner had been falsely implicated and the victim of the said case is the son of police sub Inspector and the respondents are trying to victimise the petitioner.

(3.) Affidavits have been exchanged. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that the History Sheet was not opened only on the basis of two cases mentioned in the writ petition but also because the petitioner has the company of influential persons and hardened criminals on account of which no independent witness due to fear is willing and ready to lodge reports against the petitioner or to give evidence against him. Reports have been received against the petitioner at the police station from time to time about his involvement in criminal activities due to which report was submitted and this History Sheet was rightly opened in accordance with Regulation 228(1) of the Regulations read with Regulation 240.