Disposed

Prabhat Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home and Ors.

Allahabad HC7 Mar 2022CRLP/15479/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ayodhya, to consider and decide the petitioner's 2016 representation to close his criminal history sheet by a reasoned order within eight weeks, leaving the merits of the case open.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no.2 to decide the petitioner's representation dated 24.12.2016 for closure of the history sheet within eight weeks.

Prabhat Kumar Dubey Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 15479 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Prabhat Kumar Dubey Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Pandey,Nupur Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. in Court today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Shri R.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Umesh Chandra Verma, learned A.G.A. for the Staterespondents and perused the material brought on record.

¶7

This writ petition has been filed by petitioner- Prabhat Kumar Dubey for the following primary relief:

¶8

"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opp. parties to direct the opp. parties no.2 to pass an order to direct the opp. party no.3 to close the History Sheet No.14A/1999 of the petitioner displayed at the History Sheets board at police station- Kotwali Bikapur, District- Ayodhya and further kindly may be directed to the opp. party no.3 to delete the name of the petitioner which is shown at History sheet board at police station-Kotwali Bikapur, District- Ayodhya."

¶9

It has been argued by learned counsel for petitioner that the police has opened history sheet of the petitioner on the basis of five criminal cases registered against him i.e. Case Crime No.331A/1991, under Sections 147/148/149/336/307 I.P.C., Case Crime No.340/1991, under Section 302 I.P.C., Case Crime No.358/1993, under Sections 382/447/427/506 I.P.C., Case Crime No.287/1996 under Sections 323/504/506 I.P.C. & 3(1)X of SC/ST Act, Case Crime No.202 of 1999 under Sections 307/504/506 I.P.C., all are belongs to Police Station Kotwali Bikapur, District- Ayodhya. He next argued that in all the cases,

¶10

petitioner has been acquitted by the trial court. The said fact is mentioned in para 4 of the writ petition and copies of orders of trial court are annexed as Annexure Nos.2, 3 to the writ petition.

¶11

Further argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the history sheet of Class A can be opened when it has been established on the basis of suspicion or conviction that a suspect is an active and prominent member of a gang. It is further argued that mere suspects should not be starred until established that one has become dangerous and confirmed criminal and is unlikely to reform. The next contention is that the case of the petitioner is not covered by paragraph 228 of the U.P. Police Regulations. He further submits that offences are very old and petitioner has falsely been implicated in the aforesaid cases. He next argued that petitioner has already made a representation against the history sheet before respondent no.2- Senior Superintendent of Police, District- Ayodhya on 24.12.2016 and he sent the same through speed post on the same day, copy of which is annexed as Annexure No.6 to the writ petition which is still pending.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has drawn attention of the Court towards the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Chaman Lal Vs. State of U.P. reported in 1992 Supp. (2) SCC 84(1) and argued that the matter should be relegated to the authority concerned for deciding whether the history sheet of petitioner should be closed or should be continued.

¶13

We are also of the view that the interest of justice would be best served if the representation of the petitioner dated 24.12.2016 is considered and decided in accordance with law.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, we direct the respondent no.2- Senior Superintendent of Police,

¶15

Ayodhya to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 24.12.2016 in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order.

¶16

It is made clear that this Court has not applied itself on the merits of the case and all questions are left open to be considered and decided by the competent authority in accordance with law.

¶17

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of .

¶18

(Saroj Yadav, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

¶19

Order Date :- 7.3.2022 Shubhankar

¶20

Digitally signed by SHUBHANKAR THAKUR Date: 2022.03.09 18:33:26 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Prabhat Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhat Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Usha Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home and Others

Anurag Singh Vs State of U.P Thru Secy Home Lko and Ors.

Shanti and Ors. Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin Secy. Home and Ors.

Sanju Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy Home and Ors.

Sunder Lal Bajpai Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Home Civil Sectt.Lko. and Ors.

Gulshan Bajpai and Ors. Vs State of U.P.Thru.Special Secy. Deptt.of Home U.P.Lko. and Ors.