RAJESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER :- The petitioners have come up with a prayer to command Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (the Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut and the Station House Officer, Brahmpuri, District Meerut respectively) to close down the history-sheet which was opened in 1983 against them, and to discontinue surveillance and domiciliary visits to them and their family.

(2.) They asset, inter alia, that petitioner No. 1 is S. A., aged about 32 years and is presently serving as Storekeeper in Venus Cement Factory Ltd., Dehradun and Petitioner No. 2 is S. Sc., aged about 28 years and is presently serving as an Accountant in the same Venus Cement Factory Ltd. Dehradun; that they hail from a well to do, cultured and respectable Thakur family of District Meerut, whose antecedents have been all along above board; that the members of their family reside at Brahmpuri, Meerut; that in the year 1983 both of them were falsely implicated in a criminal case under Section 395, IPC and their Criminal Appeal is pending before this Court; that on the basis of the aforesaid solitary case the police of police Station Brahmpuri opened a history-sheet in 1983, which is in operation since then; that more than 11 years have passed yet the history-sheet has not been closed; that Narendra Kumar Agarwal and Abdul Fahim-Corporators of Municipal Corporation of Brahmpuri, along with other respectable persons of the locality, on 5-7-1992 submitted a memorandum (copy appended as Annexure-1) before Respondent No. 3 recommending closure of the history-sheet in question certifying that the petitioners are leading their life like other law abiding persons against whom after 1984 no complaint or F.I.R. was lodged; that Respondent No. 2, however, paid no head rather continued with the surveillance; that Regulation 228 of the police Regulations provides that a history-sheet should be opened only for persons who are likely to become habitual criminals or abettors of such criminals; that having regard to fair antecedents after 1983 the history-sheet ought to have been closed by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and the surveillance discontinued altogether; that Regulation 229 read with Regulation 230 makes it clear that protracted surveillance shall be exercised only if the subject of an A class history sheeter is thought to be so dangerous or incorrigible; that in the garb of keeping surveillance Respondent No. 3 has been harassing and humiliating the petitioners and other inmates of the family day

(3.) From the order sheet it appears that on 18-10-95 an opportunity was granted to the Respondents for filing counter-affidavit before 24-11-95 and that even though on 3-4-96 three weeks time and no more further was granted for filing counter-affidavit no counter-affidavit has been filed till to date.