Disposed

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

Allahabad HC7 Mar 2022CRLP/16250/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition, the petitioner challenged the maintenance of his Class A History Sheet and sought its closure. The Court directed the petitioner to approach the Superintendent of Police with a fresh representation on merits, remanding the matter for a reasoned decision by the police authority.

What did the court decide?

Direction to petitioner to make a fresh representation to Superintendent of Police within three weeks for a reasoned order within six weeks.

Sunder Lal Bajpai Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 16250 of 2018 Petitioner :- Sunder Lal Bajpai Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Home Civil Sectt.Lko. And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Laltaprasad Misra,Sharad Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶3

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

¶4

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

¶5

This writ petition has been filed by petitioner- Sunder Lal Bajpai for the following reliefs:

¶6

"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Opposite Parties to close the History Sheet No.42-A opened in the name of Petitioner in Police Station Hardi, District Bahraich, information of which has been communicated to the Petitioner under Right to Information Act vide Annexure No.1 to this Writ Petition;

¶7

II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Opposite Party No.3 to conclude the Enquiry at the earliest and submit the Enquiry Report to the Opposite party No.2 in regard to the illegal demand of Laptop so made by Opposite Party No.5 to the petitioner, at the earliest, within a period of two weeks and Opposite Party No.2 may be directed to take appropriate action on the said Enquiry Report by punishing the Opposite Party No.5 appropriately;

¶8

III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Opposite Parties to not to harass the petitioner in illegal manner and the petitioner may be protected to live his family life with liberty."

¶9

Learned counsel for petitioner states that history sheet has been opened against the petitioner on 14.03.2018 on the basis of eight criminal cases registered against him i.e. Case Crime No.330/2004 under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Criminal Case No.108/2007, under Section 110-G Cr.P.C., Criminal Case

¶10

No.174A/2007, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Criminal Case No.65/2010, under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 I.P.C. & Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Criminal Case No.66/2010 under Section 3/25 of Arms Act, Criminal Case No.82/2010, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster Act, Case Crime No.1232 of 2016, under Section 135(2) of U.P. Electricity Act, Sections 504, 332, 352, 353 I.P.C., Section 3(1) (x) of SC/ST Act, Case Crime No.52 of 1998, under Sections 147, 436, 323 I.P.C. all belongs to Police Station Hardi, District Bahraich. The petitioner has given copy of the History Sheet under Right to Information Act on 29.03.2018 by the Circle Officer, Hardi, District Bahraich, the same is annexed as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition.

¶11

On pointed query being made from counsel for petitioner whether any representation is made by the petitioner or not to which learned counsel for petitioner states that petitioner is not made any representation.

¶12

Further the 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 old and petitioner has falsely been implicated in the aforesaid cases.

¶13

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

¶14

concerned for deciding whether the history sheet of petitioner should be closed or should be continued.

¶15

Considering the aforesaid, we are also of the view that the interest of justice would be best served if the matter is relegated to the police authority to take appropriate decision in the matter.

¶16

In view thereof, the petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation/application before respondent no.2Superintendent of Police, Bahraich, raising all his grievances within a period of three weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order.

¶17

In case, such a representation/application is moved by petitioner, respondent no.2- Superintendent of Police, Bahraich shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order along with representation is placed before him.

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 7.3.2022 Shubhankar

¶22

Digitally signed by SHUBHANKAR THAKUR Date: 2022.03.09 10:51:17 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunder Lal Bajpai v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Home Civil Sectt.Lko. 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.

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

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