PARMINDER SINGH Vs. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition seeks quashing of the history-sheet of the petitioner opened by the respondents and for issuance of a direction to destroy the history-sheet, finger-prints, foot-prints and photographs illegally taken and kept on the record of Police Station, Samrala.

(2.) THE grounds alleged in the petition are that the petitioner Parminder Singh is a young man of about 39 years and has studied up to Pre-University; that he is a wine contractor and also owns huge rural and urban property and is a respectable citizen; that the opponents of the petitioner got false cases registered against him at Police Station, Samrala and other police stations but he was acquitted in all the cases and was never convicted by any court for any criminal charge. It is alleged that the respondents have illegally entered the name of the petitioner in the history-sheet vide Register No. 10 of Police Station Samrala apart from having taken his finger-prints, foot-prints and photographs.

(3.) REPLY has been filed. The fact that the petitioner is 39 years of age is admitted but the remaining allegations have been denied. Of course, the allegation that the petitioner is living along with his family members at Samrala has been stated to be correct. It is stated that the petitioner does not enjoy good reputation and he is not only a habitual offender but a bad character besides indulging in smuggling of opium. Particulars of nine cases registered against him in Police Station Samrala and one case registered against him at Deoli (Rajasthan) have also been furnished. The fact that the petitioner was convicted in case FIR No. 19 dated 6th February 1976, under Section 224, Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Samrala, on 13th September, 1985 but was released on probation under section 4 of the probation of Offenders Act is also mentioned. This entry is said to have been made under orders of the Superintendent of Police as required by rules 23.4 and 23.5 of the Rules.