RAM SINGH CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition has been filed by petitioner Ram Singh Choudhary son of Shri Hari Ram @ Sriram, against the State of Rajasthan under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing proceedings pertaining to opening of History-Sheet (H.S.) under the provisions of the Rajasthan Habitual Offenders Act, 1953 coupled with Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that according to sec. 2(a) of the Rajasthan Habitual Offenders Act, 1953, it is essential that conviction on three occasions must have been penned down, only then, proceedings in connection with initiation and opening of History-Sheet could be resorted to but no such factual mandate is there and has further added that the impugned notice dated 14.7.2015, which was earlier issued u/s 113 of Cri. P.C. in connection with similar kind of proceedings, was a subject matter of S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3773/2015, preferred under the provisions of Section 482 of Cri. P.C. by the present petitioner against the State of Rajasthan and Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, while deciding the said petition No. 3773/2015 Ram Singh Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan and others on 27.1.2016 , has quashed and set aside the said notice and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sarwar, Ajmer, was duly intimated in respect of the said order of the court, in addition, the present petitioner also served a notice, Annexure-2, upon Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sarwar, District Ajmer to this effect, but the respondents in derogation to the said command, has acted upon impugned notice dated 14.7.2015 and has entered the name of petitioner in the said History-Sheet maintained under the provisions of Rajasthan Habitual offenders Act 1953 coupled with the provisions of Rule 4.4 in Surveillance Register No. 8 of the Rajasthan Police Rules 1965, since impugned notice dated 14.7.2015 has already been quashed by this court earlier, so any act in furtherance of the said notice, is non est and deserves to be set aside. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Jodhpur in Shankar Lal v. The State of Rajasthan 2016 (4) R.Cr.D. 108 (Raj.) .

(3.) Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the petitioner has got a long list of heinous offences lodged against him and he has become a persistent thorn of discomfort for the society at large and proceedings initiated does not suffer from any infirmity, so the present petition be dismissed and the entry made be maintained.