Allowed

Haneef Khan v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC19 Feb 2024CRLMP/1567/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought removal of his name from a police surveillance register, history-sheet and official website, arguing he was no longer a habitual offender with no case after 1991 and none after 2011. The court, relying on Rajasthan Police Rules and Habitual Offenders Act definitions, allowed the petition and directed removal.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to remove petitioner's name from Surveillance Register No. 8, the history-sheet at PS Mandalgarh and the Rajasthan Police website.

Haneef Khan Vs State of Rajasthan — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

(1 of 5) [CRLMP-1567/2022]

¶2

[2024:RJ-JD:8625]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶4

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1567/2022

¶5

Haneef Khan S/o Shri Ajij Khan, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Nai Abadi, Police Station Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara.

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶9

Superintendent Of Police, Bhilwara.

¶10

Station House Officer, Police Station Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Bhushan Singh Charan
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Vikram Sharma,PP

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS Order

¶14

19/02/2024

¶15

The present criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed by the petitioner for removing his name from-(1) the Surveillance Register No.8 (2) the historysheet maintained at Police Station Mandalgarh and (3) the official website of Rajasthan Police.

¶16

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that time and again, the police officials of Police Station Mandalgarh called upon the petitioner at Police Station and did not conduct any effective proceedings against him and when the petitioner visited the website of Rajasthan Police, his name was found to be uploaded in the history-sheet of Mandalgarh Circle. Learned

[2024:RJ-JD:8625]

[CRLMP-1567/2022]

(2 of 5)

counsel for the petitioner submits that without granting any opportunity of hearing and without any reason, the petitioner’s name was included in the Surveillance Register in contravention of the Rule 4.4 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965. Further, it is submitted that there is no criminal case lodged against the petitioner after the year 1991 except one FIR No. 170/2011 lodged at Police Station Kotdi, District Bhilwara wherein too, the police has filed a negative report and the same has been accepted by the learned Court. More than thirty years have passed and the petitioner is living a peaceful life. It is further submitted that though the petitioner has also moved an application before the Superintendent of Police for removing his name from the Surveillance Register, but his name has not been removed from the Surveillance Register as of yet. Therefore, it is prayed that this criminal miscellaneous petition may be allowed and the name of the petitioner may be ordered to be removed from the Surveillance Register No. 8, the history-sheet maintained at Police Station Mandalgarh and the official website of Rajasthan Police.

¶21

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor has produced a copy of letter dated 09.03.2023 sent by SHO, Police Station Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara which shows the list of cases registered against the present petitioner. However, learned Public Prosecutor is not in a position to dispute the fact that after 2011, no case has been registered against him.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

[2024:RJ-JD:8625]

[CRLMP-1567/2022]

(3 of 5)

A perusal of the letter dated 09.03.2023 shows that the last conviction of the petitioner was in the year 2000 for the offence committed in the year 1988. Further, as per the list, the last case registered against the petitioner was in the year 1991. I have also perused the relevant provisions of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965. Rule 4.12 and 4.13 are reproduced for ready reference as under:

¶27

4.12 Treatment of history sheets and personal files .(1)The history sheet of a person who is no longer addicted to crime shall be transferred to his personal file. Under no circumstances shall the history sheet of person who is undergoing sentence be relegated to his personal file.

¶28

(2) The history sheet and personal file of a person who takes up his residence permanently in another police station jurisdiction shall be transferred to such police station.

¶29

(3) The history sheet and personal file of a person who dies shall be destroyed.

¶30

(4) All disposal actions referred to in this rule shall be taken in accordance with the order of a gazetted officer.

¶31

4.13 Personal files, maintenance and disposal of. - (1) The

¶32

starting of a personal file should always be the first stage in compiling the record of a suspect. As soon as suspicious have come into record regarding an individual to an extent which indicates that he is addicted to crime or is the associate of criminals. such record should be tabulated to form the foundation of a personal file subsequently, all information obtained about such person, whether in his favour or against him. shall be added to his file. The personal file shall form the main material be which superior officers will be guided as to whether to open a history sheet or not, It follows that a personal file must be maintained for every person of whom a history sheet exists. On such file, bad character rolls, papers relating to information sheets etc., shall be recorded. (See rule 4.17(7)(b) in this connection).

¶33

(2) All personal files shall be paged and indexed.

¶34

(3) (a) The personal files of persons for whom history sheets have been opened shall be given the same serial number as the history sheet and kept separately in a bundle.

(4 of 5)

[2024:RJ-JD:8625]

[CRLMP-1567/2022]

(b) The personal files of persons for whom no history sheet exists shall be kept in a separate bundle. These files shall not be numbered, but a list of them shall be kept in the bundle and they shall be arranged according to villages.

¶39

(4) To prevent the under accumulation of useless personal files, the Superintendent may, at his discretion, order the destruction of the personal file of any person of whom a history sheet does not exist when such person has been of good behaviour continuously for seven years and the up-keep of his personal file appears unnecessary.

¶40

Perusal of the Rules aforesaid reveals that the Police Department is under obligation to act as per the aforesaid rules, but in the present case, the facts go a long way to show that the last conviction of the petitioner was in the year 2000 for the offence committed in the year 1988 and as per the list, the last case registered against the petitioner was in the year 1991. Therefore, it is clear that from last five years, there is no conviction against the petitioner and thus, he is not a habitual offender as per Section 2(a) of the Rajasthan Habitual Offenders Act, 1953. Section 2(a) of the Act of 1953 runs as under:

¶41

(a) 'habitual offender' means a person who, during any continuous period of five years, whether before or after the 15th day of September, 1952 or partly before and partly after the said day, has been sentenced on conviction on not less than three occasion since he attained the age of eighteen years to a substantive term of imprisonment for any one or more of the scheduled offences committed on different occasions and not so connected together as to form parts of the same transaction, such sentence not having been reversed in appeal or revision;

¶42

Provided that in computing the continuous period of five years referred to above any period spent in jail either under a sentence of impriso nment or under detention shall not be taken into account.

¶43

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that after the year 2011, neither any case has

[2024:RJ-JD:8625]

[CRLMP-1567/2022]

(5 of 5)

been registered against the petitioner nor has he been convicted this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents to remove the name of the petitioner from the Surveillance Register No. 8, history-sheet maintained at Police Station Mandalgarh and the official website of Rajasthan Police.

¶48

Accordingly, the present criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to remove the name of the petitioner from the Surveillance Register No.8, history-sheet maintained at Police Station Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara and the official website of the Rajasthan Police.

¶49

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J

¶50

783-manila/-

Haneef Khan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haneef Khan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinod Chand Vs State of Rajasthan

Ankush Shah Vs State of Rajasthan through Station House Officer

Mamta Giri Vs State of Rajasthan

Subhash Vs State of Rajasthan

Manish Kumar Solanki Vs Parikshit Raj Singh Solanki

Sukha Singh @ Sukhi Singh Vs State of Rajasthan