Guru Bux Singh Bakshi vs State of U.P.

By means of this petition the petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to close the historysheet of the petitioner and further the petitioner be not kept under surveillance by the police authorities on the ground that the Superintendent of Police has no right to open the historysheet of the petitioner on the basis of the cases mentioned in paragraphs 10 to 12 of the writ petitioner.

It is admitted by the Standing Counsel that historysheet No. 88 of Class ''A'' was opened by the police in 1984 and since then the same is continuing. The petitioner has filed this petition in 1991 with a prayer to quash the same. The main contention of the petitioner''s counsel is that at the time of opening of the historysheet, three cases were pending and on the said basis historysheet was opened. The first case was case Crime No. 381/84 under Section 302, IPC. In the said case the petitioner was not prosecuted and the investigation was conducted by the C. B. C. I. D. In another case Crime No. 312/79 under Sections 147/148/504506, IPC. Final report was submitted by the police and the case closed; and the third]case was Crime Nos. 217/85 and 218/85 under Section 307, IPC. and 25 Arms Act. The grievance of the petitioner is that on this basis it cannot be said that the petitioner is a dacoit, burglar, cattle thief, railway goods wagon thief or abettor thereof. Therefore, the historysheet of Class ''A'' cannot be opened. The second contention of the petitioner''s counsel is that in the view of the provisions of para 231 of Police Regulations after two years, his surveillance will be discontinued unless some special reasons are recorded in the inspectionbook of the police that it should continue.

As pointed out above, this petition was filed on 9121991. The Standing Counsel was allowed two weeks time to file counteraffidavit but in spite of the fact that the Standing counsel has been granted time on several occasions, no counteraffidavit has been filed uptill now. Vide order dated 2271992 this Court allowed the Standing Counsel to file counteraffidavit observing that no further time would be granted, but even then no counteraffidavit has been filed. Today again no counteraffidavit is ready, hence we proceed with the hearing of the case.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

We find force in the contention of the petitioner''s counsel that the cases mentioned in paragraphs 10 to 12 of the writ petition do not fall within the category of Class ''A'' of para 228 of the Police Regulations. As no counteraffidavit controverting the said fact has been filed, we presume that the cases mentioned in paragraphs 10 to 12 are the only cases. Accordingly Class ''A'' historysheet could not be opened against the petitioner even under the provisions of para 228 of the Police Regulations. Secondly, para 231 of Police Regulation further provides that the subject of historysheet of Class ''A'' shall continue for two consecutive year and thereafter his surveillance will be discontinued unless some special reason is recorded by the Superintendent of Police.

In this case as pointed out above, the historysheet was opened in 1984 and since then the surveillance of the petitioner is continuing. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly vehemently argued that in no case the surveillance could continue after lapse of two years'' period, specially when no order was passed by the Superintendent of Police for its continuance by giving any special reason. In absence of such order, surveillance could not continue against the petitioner after 1986. In these circumstances on this ground also the present petition is liable to succeed. It cannot be disputed that by opening a historysheet the personal liberty of a citizen is affected and, therefore, the same cannot be allowed to continue in an arbitrary manner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that after opening of the historysheet, the petitioner is enrolled as an Advocate and he is an income tax payee. It is also alleged that the petitioner is a holder of valid licence of revolver and rifle etc.

Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case we hold that opening of historysheet of Class ''A'' against the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of para 228(i), and in view of para 231 of the Police Regulations, the same is liable to be discontinued. In similar circumstance this Court in a case of Jugla Saran v. Superintendent of Police, Gonda and others, reported in 1989 LLJ 345 took a similar view and we also agree with the said view. Hence the present petition succeeds and we direct the opposite parties to close the historysheet of the petitioner forthwith. However, it is made clear that the opposite parties will not be debarred from taking fresh action in accordance with law.