SHEIKH SHAHZAD Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order directing surveillance against him.

(2.) THE facts as have been uncurtained are that the petitioner belongs to a respectable family and carries on business for his living. It is putforth that he has personal knowledge that Station House Officer, Bhainsdehi, District Betul the respondent No. 4 herein, initiated surveillance proceeding and started preparation of history sheet. As pleaded, the petitioner is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in three criminal cases. It has been urged that in one case the offence was compounded and he was acquitted and in two other cases registered for offences punishable under Sections 107 and 116 of Cr. PC the proceedings have been terminated. According to the writ petitioner on 24-4-1996 the respondent No. 4 alongwith some others came to the petitioner and compelled him to move along with the respondent No. 4 without any rhyme or reason. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner submitted a written complaint to the various authorities. An enquiry was conducted and the respondent No. 4 was transferred. As has been setforth that the petitioner has been harassed by the authority for no fault of his and kept under surveillance which infringes his right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) IT has been averred in the writ petition that the preparation of history sheet and surveillance are governed by the Police Regulations framed under the Police Act, 1861 and Regulation 651 deals with the opening of history sheets of various categories of criminals. A reference has also been made to the Regulations 243 and 249. It is urged that a cursory look at the regulations goes a long way to show that the petitioner does not come within the ambit and sweep of the regulations and hence, the order of surveillance is absolutely unwarranted.