Allowed

Ravi Joshi v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 Nov 2023CRLMP/2354/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed a protection petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging an SP's order to place the petitioner in the Surveillance Register. The court held the petitioner did not qualify under Rule 4.4 of Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965, as he had not been convicted twice, and directed his removal.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners name to be deleted from Surveillance Register No.8 forthwith.

Ravi Joshi Vs State of Rajasthan — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:37828]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2354/2023

¶4

Ravi Joshi S/o Shri Suresh Joshi, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Sakariya, Police Station Rathanjana, Tehsil And District Pratapgarh (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

Superintendent Of Police, Pratapgarh.

¶9

Sho, Police Station, Rathanjana, District Pratapgarh.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Shambhoo Singh
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Anil Joshi GA cum AAG

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

¶13

Order

¶14

04/11/2023

¶15

The petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh directing to open the history sheet of the petitioner.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that total five cases have been lodged against the petitioner, out of which, in one case, the petitioner has been acquitted and in one case, the petitioner has been convicted and rest of the cases are pending trial. It is argued that the Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh while acting in an arbitrary manner has ordered to open history sheet of the petitioner curtailing his right to life and liberty, therefore, the same may kindly be quashed and set aside.

[2023:RJ-JD:37828]

[CRLMP-2354/2023]

(2 of 4)

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments rendered at Principal Seat as well as Jaipur Bench of this Hon’ble Court:

¶21

Sohan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [2015 1 CriC(Raj)316].

¶22

Babu Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan [2006 2 CriC(Raj) 1182].

¶23

Shyam Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan [2012 3 CrLR 1325].

¶24

Swaroop Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10993/2013].

¶25

Ramgopal Jain Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. [2013(3) WLC (Raj.) 466].

¶26

Suraj Prakash Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [2015 4 CrLR 1938]

¶27

Mahesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [2016 2 CriCC 424].

¶28

Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted a reply and it is stated that five cases were registered against the petitioner, out of which, in one case the petitioner has been acquitted on the basis of compromise and in one case the petitioner has been convicted and other three cases are still pending trial. It is argued that the petitioner is a habitual offender and five cases have been registered against the petitioner under different sections.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder has shown the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965, Rule 4.4 whereof deals with the Surveillance Register No.8 whereby the Historysheet is maintained. The said Rule 4.4 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965, reads as under:

[2023:RJ-JD:37828]

[CRLMP-2354/2023]

(3 of 4)

“ 4.4. Surveillance Register No.,8 - (1) In every police station, other than those of the railway police, a Surveillance Register shall be maintained in form 4.4(1).

¶34

(2) In part I of such register shall be entered the names of persons commonly resident within or commonly frequenting the local jurisdiction of the police station concerned, who belong to one or more of the following classes :-

¶35

(a) All persons who have been proclaimed under section 87, Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶36

(b) All released convicts in regard to whom. an order under section 565, Criminal Procedure Code, has been made.

¶37

(c) All convicts the execution of whose sentence as suspended in the whole, or any part of whose punishment has been remitted conditionally under section 401, Criminal Procedure Code.

¶38

(d) All persons restricted under Rules of Government mode under section 8 of the Rajasthan Habitual Offenders Act, 1953.

¶39

(3) In part II of such register may be entered at the discretion of the Superintendent : -

¶40

(4) Persons who have been convicted twice, or more than twice, of offences mentioned in rule 8.22;

¶41

(b) persons who are reasonably believed to be habitual offenders or receivers of stolen property whether they have been convicted or not;

¶42

¶43

(d) convicts released before the expiration of their sentences under the Prisons Act and Remission Rules without imposition of any conditions.

(4 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JD:37828]

[CRLMP-2354/2023]

Note:- This rule must be strictly construed, and entries must be confined to the names of persons falling in the four classes named therein.”

¶48

Learned counsel for the petitioner in his rejoinder submits that a bare perusal of the aforequoted Rule, makes it amply clear that the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of necessary requirements of Rule 4.4 in the Surveillance Register.

¶49

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, as well as perusing the record of the case alongwith the precedent law cited at the Bar and Rule 4.4 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 as quoted above, this Court is of the opinion that it is a consistent position of the precedent law that where a person is not convicted twice in the cases pending against him, then the entry of the name of the person concerned from the surveillance register was to be removed.

¶50

This Court has also read the aforequoted Rule 4.4 of the Rules of 1965, and finds that in the present facts and circumstances, the said Rule 4.4 is not applicable for maintaining the name of the petitioner in the Surveillance Register. The fact of the petitioner having five cases is not denied, however, he has been acquitted in one case and has not been convicted twice.

¶51

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to delete the name of the petitioner from the Surveillance Register No.8, forthwith.

¶52

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

¶53

204-BJSH/-

Ravi Joshi v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Joshi v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nakhu Devi Vs State of Rajasthan

Banshilal Vs State of Rajasthan

Anil Vs State of Rajasthan

Sandeep Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahesh Borana Vs State

Pintu @ Prakash Vs State of Rajasthan