GANPAT VISHNOI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The instant misc. petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dtd. 24/6/2024 passed by respondent No.3 Deputy Commissioner of Police (West) directing opening of history sheet against the petitioner being contrary to the provisions of the Rajasthan Police Rules.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide impugned order/communication dtd. 24/6/2024 passed by Deputy Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur West, direction for opening history-sheet of the petitioner has been issued. A perusal of the impugned order would reveal that such direction has been issued on the basis of his alleged previous involvement in drug trafficking and other criminal activities. It has been mentioned in the impugned communication that five criminal cases have been registered against him in different police stations at Jodhpur Commissionerate out of which, in three cases, challan has been filed in the court concerned whereas two cases are pending investigation. Learned counsel submits that it is apparent from the impugned order dtd. 24/6/2024 that in three cases, challan has been filed in the court concerned whereas two cases are pending investigation and thus, the petitioner has not been convicted in single case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 4.4 and Rule 4.9 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 provides for Surveillance Register and History Sheet when Opened. As per Rule 4.9 of the Rules of 1965; No.(1) a history sheet, if one does not already exist, shall be opened in Form 4.9 for every person whose name is entered in the surveillance register, except conditionally released convicts and No.(2) A history sheet may be opened by, or under the written orders of, a police officer not below the rank of Inspector for any person not entered in the surveillance register who is reasonably believed to be habitually addicted to crime or to be an aider or abettor such persons. While referring the provisions of Sec. 2(1)(a) of the Rajasthan Habitual Offenders Act, 1953, which provides definition of "habitual offender", learned counsel submits that the petitioner is not falling under the definition of Habitual Offender and thus, does not fall under Rule 4.4 and 4.9 of the Rules of 1965. He thus, submits that the provisions of Rajasthan Police Rules do not empower respondent Deputy Commissioner, Jodhpur West directing opening of the history sheet against the petitioner. In support of his contention, learned counsel places reliance upon the following cases:-