SHYAM LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. The instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 15.1.2008 passed by the S.P., Chittorgarh directing opening of history sheet of the petitioner and praying for the quashing of the history sheet opened against him.

(2.) Succinctly stated the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant petition are that the S.P., Chittorgarh by his order dated 15.1.2008 issued a direction for opening the history sheet of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that between the year 1991 to the date of passing of the impugned order, four .criminal cases in all were registered against him and out of them two cases have resulted into the acquittal and from the remaining two as well, the petitioner was convicted in one and the appeal challenging. the conviction is pending before this Court. It has also been stated that no criminal case or criminal activity was reported against the petitioner between the years 2002 to 2006. Therefore, it has been stated by way of the instant misc. petition that the provisions of Rajasthan Police Rules do not empower the S.P., Chittorgarh to direct opening of the history sheet against the petitioner.

(3.) On the misc. petition being so filed, reply was solicited from the State and as per the reply filed by State, it has been claimed that the petitioner's name has been entered into surveillance register for the purpose of keeping a check on his criminal activities. However, the fact regarding the acquittal of the petitioner in three cases registered against him has been stated and it has further been stated that two cases arising out of F.I.R. Nos. 257/2001 and 56/2007 are still pending before the competent Courts. It was also stated that after opening of the history sheet, another F.I.R. No. 25/2010 was registered against the petitioner at P.S. Rashmi. It has also been averred that the preventive measures under Sections 41/110 and 107/151 Code Criminal Procedure have been undertaken against the petitioner on five occasions between 2007 to 2011. On the basis of these facts, it has been submitted that the powers of this Court under Sec. 482 Code Criminal Procedure do not deserve to be exercised for quashing the history sheet opened against the petitioner.