Case Note & Summary
Background: The petitioner challenged an order dated 24.04.2014 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Sirohi, reopening his history sheet and placing him under active surveillance. The history sheet was originally opened in 1986 due to six criminal cases between 1986 and 1997, but after acquittals based on compromise, it was placed in the silent bag in 2005. Subsequently, two FIRs (Nos. 101 and 103 of 2012) were registered against the petitioner on 15.08.2012 for various offences including Section 307 IPC and Section 3(1)(1) SC/ST Act, leading to the impugned reopening order. Facts: In FIR No. 101/2012, the petitioner was acquitted on 25.09.2019 giving benefit of doubt. In FIR No. 103/2012, after compromise, the State moved an application under Section 321 Cr.P.C., which was initially dismissed but later allowed in Criminal Revision Petition No.820/2025 by order dated 08.07.2025, resulting in discharge. Despite this, the police continued issuing preventive summons under Sections 108, 110 Cr.P.C. and Sections 126, 129 BNSS every six months, requiring the petitioner to furnish bonds and causing mental harassment. Legal Issues: The core questions were whether reopening of the history sheet was lawful when the petitioner had never been convicted, and whether the definition of 'habitual offender' under the Rajasthan Habitual Offenders Act, 1953 requiring three convictions applied to Rule 4.4(3)(b) and Rule 4.9(2) of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965. Arguments: The petitioner contended that acquittal/discharge in both FIRs, reformation, and social work meant he was not a habitual offender and that reopening contravened Rules 4.4 and 4.9. He relied on Kaptan Singh and Sanjay to argue that without conviction no history sheet could be opened. The State argued that the petitioner played a key role in communal riots in village Krishnaganj in 2012, and police have a duty under Section 23 Police Act, 1861 to prevent offences; Rule 4.9(2) permits opening history sheet based on reasonable belief of habitual addiction to crime, and conviction is not necessary. Court's Analysis: The court noted the delay but found the issue recurring and justiciable. It disagreed with Kaptan Singh's application of the Act of 1953 definition to Rules 1965. Relying on Laxmi Narayan Meena and Dhanji Ram Sharma, the court held that Rule 4.4(3)(b) expressly includes persons 'whether they have been convicted or not', so conviction is not a precondition. Rule 4.9(2) allows opening history sheet for persons reasonably believed to be habitually addicted to crime. The belief must be reasonable, based on grounds, not mere belief. The court also referred to Malak Singh, requiring cautious decision before surveillance. Decision: The available excerpt of the judgment does not include the final operative order, so the ultimate relief granted is not known from the text provided.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Police Surveillance - Opening of History Sheet - Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965, Rules 4.4(3)(b) and 4.9(2) - Conviction is not a precondition for entering a person's name in Surveillance Register or opening a history sheet; Rule 4.4(3)(b) expressly states 'whether they have been convicted or not'. The court held that the definition of 'habitual offender' under the Rajasthan Habitual Offenders Act, 1953, which requires three convictions, cannot be imported into the Rules of 1965, relying on Laxmi Narayan Meena and Dhanji Ram Sharma (Paras 14-16). B) Criminal Procedure - Reasonable Belief Standard - Rule 4.9(2) Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 - For opening a history sheet, the police officer must have a reasonable belief that the person is habitually addicted to crime; mere belief is insufficient and must be based on reasonable grounds. The court followed the Apex Court in Dhanji Ram Sharma that the suspect may or may not have been convicted (Paras 15, 18). C) Criminal Procedure - Delay and Recurring Cause - Writ Jurisdiction - The court observed that although the petition filed in 2026 challenged an order of 2014, the effect of the impugned order is recurring in nature, hence the issue deserved adjudication despite the delay (Para 12). D) Precedent - Applicability of Habitual Offenders Act - Rajasthan Habitual Offenders Act, 1953 - The court agreed with Laxmi Narayan Meena that the definition of 'habitual offender' in the Act of 1953 requiring three convictions cannot be applied to the Rules of 1965 because the rules do not incorporate that definition; instead, the dictionary meaning and the Apex Court definition apply (Paras 14-16). E) Police Law - Surveillance Register Entry - Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965, Rule 4.4(3)(b) - The court noted that the Apex Court in Malak Singh directed cautious decision before entering a name in the surveillance register; police action was upheld even when a conviction was set aside (Para 19).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a history sheet can be reopened under Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 despite acquittal/discharge and no conviction; whether the definition of 'habitual offender' under Rajasthan Habitual Offenders Act, 1953 applies to Rule 4.4(3)(b) and Rule 4.9(2) of the Rules of 1965; whether the order reopening history sheet is sustainable
Final Decision
Not mentioned (judgment text truncated before final operative portion)
Law Points
- History sheet can be opened without conviction under Rule 4.4(3)(b) and Rule 4.9(2) of Rajasthan Police Rules
- 1965
- definition of 'habitual offender' under Rajasthan Habitual Offenders Act
- 1953 not applicable to Rules 1965
- reasonable belief based on grounds sufficient
- mere belief insufficient
- police must take cautious decision before surveillance
