KAPTAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of filing the instant criminal writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dtd. 23/4/2025 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur, by which history sheet has been ordered to be opened in terms of Rule 4.9 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 (for short, 'the Rules of 1965') against the petitioner.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in all, ten criminal cases were registered against the petitioner during different years, where in the FIR Nos.127/2024, 288/2024, 317/2024, 477/2024 and 518/2016 registered with the Police Station Bhusawar, the Final Report Negative was submitted. While in FIR No.46/2007, registered with the Police Station Weir, Bharatpur, the proceedings were quashed by this Court vide order dtd. 18/7/2017, while deciding S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1217/2017. Counsel submits that in the FIR Nos.106/2007 and 05/2016, registered with the Police Station Bhusawar, after trial the petitioner has been acquitted and in the FIR No.52/2015 registered with the Police Station Bhusawar, the trial is pending and still going on. Counsel submits that apart from the above nine criminal cases, the petitioner has been convicted only in one other criminal case bearing No.80/2014 registered with the Police Station Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur. Hence, under these circumstances, the order impugned cannot be passed, in terms of Rule 4.92 of the Rules of 1965. Counsel submits that the word 'habitual offender' has not been defined under the Rules of 1965, but it has been defined in the Rajasthan Habitual Offenders Act, 1953 (for short, 'the Act of 1953), whereby a 'habitual offender' means a person who has been convicted in more than three criminal cases on three different occasions, after attaining the age of 18 years. Counsel submits that till date, the petitioner has not been convicted in more than a single case, therefore, under these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be treated as an habitual offender and history sheet cannot be ordered to be opened against him. In support of his contentions, counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Pankaj Charan vs. State of Rajasthn and Ors. while deciding S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2975/2014 vide order dtd. 13/1/2015 and Nishit @ Bablu Choudhary vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. while deciding S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.5992/2016 on 3/3/2023. Counsel submits that in view of the submissions made herein above, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

(3.) Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer, but he is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner.