# Aftab Alam v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 856
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-04
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 9074 of 2022
- **Bench:** Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Kshitij Shailendra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/aftab-alam-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51861
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

Criminal Law - U.P. Police Regulations -
Regulations 228, 232, 233, 234, 240 -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 489 -
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 -
Petitioner sought quashing of Class B history
sheet and cessation of surveillance, citing
quashing of solitary case under Section 489 I.P.C.
Court held: (1) History sheets under Regulation
228 are opened for persons likely to become
habitual criminals; Class B history sheets are for
confirmed professional criminals, but require
special reasons for continuous surveillance until
death per Regulation 232 (Krishna Chandra Singh
Vs St. of U.P., 2015 (11) ADJ 219). (2) Quashing
of petitioner's sole criminal case in 2018, with no
other cases pending, warranted review of
continued surveillance, as Regulation 233 allows
discontinuance of surveillance with a note in the
history sheet, though the sheet itself remains
open (Dhananjaya Reddy Vs St. of Karn., (2001)
4 SCC 9). (3) No provision exists under U.P. Police
Regulations for quashing a Class B history sheet,
but authorities must justify ongoing surveillance
with special reasons, and surveillance must
comply with constitutional privacy rights (St. of
Tamil Nadu Vs K. Shyam Sunder, (2011) 8 SCC
737). (4) Writ of certiorari to quash history sheet
was not maintainable, but petitioner was entitled
to seek review of surveillance by representation
to the Deputy Inspector General (D.I.G.) under
Regulations 232 and 233. Petition disposed of;
petitioner directed to file representation within
one month, and D.I.G. to pass reasoned order
within two months after hearing and record
review. (Paras 26-36)

Writ Petition Disposed of.

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,842 of 40,277. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39842 for what follows._

856 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to the petitioner by the State within two
months.

20. Registrar (Compliance) is directed
to communicate this order to respondent
nos. 1 and 2 within two weeks.

21. Respondent no. 1 will report
compliance of this order to the Registrar
(Compliance) of this Court within ten weeks.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 856
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA
TRIPATHI, J.
THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 9074 of 2022

Aftab Alam ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sandeep Kumar Dubey, Sri Manish
Ojha

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Criminal Law - U.P. Police Regulations -
Regulations 228, 232, 233, 234, 240 -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 489 -
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 -
Petitioner sought quashing of Class B history
sheet and cessation of surveillance, citing
quashing of solitary case under Section 489 I.P.C.
Court held: (1) History sheets under Regulation
228 are opened for persons likely to become
habitual criminals; Class B history sheets are for
confirmed professional criminals, but require
special reasons for continuous surveillance until
death per Regulation 232 (Krishna Chandra Singh
Vs St. of U.P., 2015 (11) ADJ 219). (2) Quashing
of petitioner's sole criminal case in 2018, with no
other cases pending, warranted review of
continued surveillance, as Regulation 233 allows
discontinuance of surveillance with a note in the
history sheet, though the sheet itself remains
open (Dhananjaya Reddy Vs St. of Karn., (2001)
4 SCC 9). (3) No provision exists under U.P. Police
Regulations for quashing a Class B history sheet,
but authorities must justify ongoing surveillance
with special reasons, and surveillance must
comply with constitutional privacy rights (St. of
Tamil Nadu Vs K. Shyam Sunder, (2011) 8 SCC
737). (4) Writ of certiorari to quash history sheet
was not maintainable, but petitioner was entitled
to seek review of surveillance by representation
to the Deputy Inspector General (D.I.G.) under
Regulations 232 and 233. Petition disposed of;
petitioner directed to file representation within
one month, and D.I.G. to pass reasoned order
within two months after hearing and record
review. (Paras 26-36)

Writ Petition Disposed of.

List of Cases cited:

1. Krishna Chandra Singh Vs St. of U.P., 2015
(11) ADJ 219 (Para 24)

2. Mohammad Naeem @ Neem Babu, 2015
LawSuit (All) 3335 (Para 24)

3. Sanjay Karnwal Vs St. of U.P., 2010 (7) ADJ
510 (Para 24)

4. Mohd. Safi Vs St. of Uttarakhand, 2013 (2)
UD 600 (Para 24)

5. Zaved Akhtar Vs St. of U.P., Crl. Misc. Writ
Petition No. 14644 of 2019 (Para 24)

6. Dhananjaya Reddy Vs St. of Karn., (2001) 4
SCC 9 (Para 32)

7. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Vs
Anjum M.H. Ghaswala, (2002) 1 SCC 633 (Para
32)

8. Captain Sube Singh Vs Lt. Governor of Delhi,
(2004) 6 SCC 440 (Para 32)

9. St. of Jharkhand Vs Ambay Cements, (2005)
1 SCC 368 (Para 32)
4 All. Aftab Alam Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
857
(Delivered by Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mrs. Manju Thakur, learned
A.G.A.-I along with Sri G.P. Singh, learned
A.G.A-1 for the State and perused the
record.

THE WRIT PETITION

2. This writ petition has been filed
seeking a writ, order or direction in the
nature of certiorari quashing History Sheet
No.21-B opened against the petitioner at
Police Station Shahganj, District Allahabad
with a further prayer to issue a writ in the
nature
of
mandamus
directing
the
respondents not to keep surveillance on the
petitioner in pursuance of the said history
sheet.

CONCEPT OF AND PHILOSOPHY
BEHIND HISTORY SHEET

3. When the term "history-sheeter" is
mentioned, it conjures an image of a
seasoned criminal with an extensive record.
The question arises: who exactly are these
history-sheeters, and how does the police
categorize
someone
as
such?
What
disadvantages does a criminal face after
being labeled a history-sheeter, and what
consequences does it entail? These queries
find answers in the following exploration.

4. In essence, a history sheeter is a
designation employed by the police to
identify individuals with a significant
criminal history. This label is affixed to
those who have been implicated in
numerous offenses, with the details of their
criminal activities duly recorded by the
police. Before initiating the history sheet
for any offender, the police verify the
individual's current criminal status.

5. The process begins when an
individual,
already
proven
guilty
in
multiple cases and/or consistently engaging
in criminal activities, attracts the attention
of the police station's SHO. A report is
subsequently sent to the SSP or SP, and
upon receiving the necessary orders, the
history
sheet
is
opened.
This
comprehensive document contains detailed
information about the criminal, including a
criminal profile, associates, and known
relatives. In certain scenarios, where
individuals hesitate to report crimes related
to organized rackets or extortion, the
police, relying on local sources, maintain
surveillance on such potential threats to
society. The opening of history sheets is
guided by calls, daily entries in the police
control room, and the ongoing assessment
of those posing a danger to society.

6. The presence of a history sheet
serves as a deterrent, as it subjects the
criminals to constant police scrutiny. Once
a history sheet is opened, the criminals are
required to regularly register their presence
at the police station; failure to comply
prompts the police authorities to visit their
residences. Furthermore, a history sheet
aids in tracing the source of income for
criminals, enabling authorities to determine
whether they have transitioned to legitimate
means of earning. This scrutiny helps
identify instances where an individual,
previously engaged in illegal activities,
displays signs of leading a luxurious
lifestyle despite being unemployed.

7. The process of opening "History
Sheet" is governed by the Police Rules of
the concerned State or the Act governing
habitual offenders.

8. Criminals often attempt to evade
capture by frequently changing addresses.
858 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
To counter this, the police communicate
with other districts or States, sharing
information
about
potential
areas
of
relocation
and
requesting
vigilant
monitoring. Employing various strategies
like crime mapping and identifying hot
spots, law enforcement aims to curb
criminal activities and maintain public
safety.

9. History sheets are analogous to our
criminal intelligence databases, but are
more subject to legal constraints. At the
same time, they are more vulnerable to
public disclosure because they call for
intensive
and
frequently
conspicuous
monitoring both by police and civilian
leaders.

10. Since the days of the British
regime, Indian police departments have
created
history
sheets
for
persons
believed to pose a risk of future
criminality. The "history-sheeters" may
have been convicted, or have criminal
charges pending. History sheeters are
subject to monitoring and surveillance. In
India, the system of maintaining criminal
record varies from State to State. All
States require automatic creation of a
history sheet for persons with certain
criminal records. For example, Tamil
Nadu requires creation of a history sheet
for a person convicted once of a serious
violent crime, twice for house breaking,
three times for theft and certain other
offenses. The police generally also have
discretion to create a history sheet on an
individual who has not been convicted,
but whom police consider "addicted to
crime" or a threat to public order. The
police must have an articulable reason for
creating a history sheet and they must
notify the record-subject that a history
sheet has been opened.

11. The police, with the assistance of
the village officials are obliged to surveil
and record information about the activities
and movements of history-sheeters who
reside in their jurisdiction. There are court
restrictions
and
police
best
practise
guidelines, varying from State to State, on
the level of permissible monitoring and
surveillance. There are many factors
regulating when a history sheet can be
opened, how long it can be kept and the
intensity of surveillance that it authorizes.
Courts have held that surveillance of
history-sheeters must not be excessive. For
example, some State courts and some
police agencies have issued guidelines
stating
that
first-time
history-sheeters
should be especially closely watched;
surveillance should be discrete; domiciliary
visits are not permitted; family members
must not be harassed; police officers should
make periodic and routine inquiries about
the history-sheeter's habits, associations,
income, expenses and occupation; the
police
officers
shall
record
historysheeter's movements and absences from his
domiciliary home or area where he lives,
and the like guidelines.

12. The history sheet has been subject
to constitutional challenge on privacy
grounds.
The
Supreme
Court
has
recognized that police surveillance based
upon a history sheet implicates a limited
right
to
privacy
implicit
in
the
Constitutional right to life and personal
liberty. According to the Court, every
individual's autonomy should be respected;
there is a right to be left alone. However,
the right to privacy is not absolute and the
creation of a history sheet and surveillance
of
the
history-sheeter
is
not
unconstitutional
if
carried
out
in
compliance with legal standards or, in the
absence
of
standards,
if
conducted
4 All. Aftab Alam Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
859
reasonably. In one case, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court struck down home visits as
infringing on the right to personal liberty
and freedom of movement.

13. Police is supposed to update the
file periodically with both favorable and
unfavorable information gathered via
routine police patrols and enquiries. Such
information
should
be
recorded
impartially, not with an eye toward
compiling a negative case against the
record-subject.
The
history
sheet,
including a photo of the history-sheeter, is
a confidential record. The police is not
authorized to disclose to public or private
employers whether a job applicant or
employee is a history-sheeter, much less
what
information
the
history
sheet
contains. However, the surveillance/crime
control purpose of the history sheet
requires that police officers have easy
access to the history sheet. Local police
can only monitor and surveil recordsubjects if they know who they are. The
history sheet is supposed to be shared with
the Railway Police. If the history-sheeter
moves to another jurisdiction, the history
sheet
is
transferred
to
the
new
jurisdiction's
police
department.
Moreover, for proper reasons, the police
may show the public a history-sheeter's
photos, when necessary, to capture a
fugitive or solve a crime.

14. In sum, Indian law and policy
recognize that police records, though
necessary for crime control, implicate
privacy and individual autonomy. The
courts have struggled to regulate the history
sheet system by providing court review for
individuals objecting to their history sheet
designation
and
by
limiting
police
discretion to open, maintain and conduct
surveillance.

15. When above is the situation and
philosophy behind opening of history sheets
and to keep the history sheeters on
surveillance depending on the circumstances,
can it be said that opening of history sheet or
continuing with the surveillance is stigmatic
in so far as the individual is concerned and
whether permanent closure of history sheet or
its quashing by a court of law would at all be
justified? The answer would be - No. The
reason is that the police needs a mechanism
to control the crime, both individual and
organized. Surveillance of suspects, habitual
and potential offenders, may be necessary
and so the maintenance of history sheet and
surveillance register for the purpose of
prevention of crime. Permissible surveillance
is only to the extent of a close watch over the
movements of the person under surveillance
and no more. Further, transfer of police
officials from one place to other on frequent
basis is a normal phenomenon in India.
During their short tenure at a particular place
of posting, concerned police officers may
have some inputs about a criminal but after
they leave that particular place and new
officer joins, as to what would be the data
available with the new incumbent to know
about the criminal activities in a particular
area, village or city, is a matter of
significance. Past record, including a history
sheet as well as record of keeping a history
sheeter under surveillance, therefore, would
then be a guiding factor. A history sheet,
therefore, is simply a sacrosanct idea to have
inputs and information about criminals and
their past record for a better police
administration.

MODERN AGE CHALLENGES FOR
CRIME CONTROLLING AGENCIES

16. This is the era of 'Crime and
Criminal Tracking Network and Systems'
(in short 'CCTNS'). Criminal Tracking
860 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
System has not changed much since the
days of British Rule in India. Most of the
work is still done by the investigating
agencies manually despite advancement in
technology. The problem is compounded
multifold with police stations across the
country having gaps in technological coordination and harmony and lack of
technical know-how itself. While some
States
are
well
equipped
with
the
technological upgradation, others are still
living in old era. Even the ones with
advanced technology cannot handle the
huge volume of criminal cases. Therefore,
the objective is putting in place a
comprehensive and integrated system for
enhancing efficiency and effectiveness of
policing
at
the
police
station
level
throughout the country and this is what
CCTNS is meant for.

17. The objectives of CCTNS are to
facilitate a citizen friendly functioning of
the police, automating the functioning of
police stations for greater accountability
and
transparency,
to
enhance
the
functioning of the police in several other
zones such as law and order, traffic
management etc, to maintain appropriate
track of development of cases including in
courts and decrease manual and redundant
record keeping. In relation to the concept of
history sheeters, the objective of CCTNS is
to enable sharing of information and
interaction among police stations, districts,
State and Union Territory's Headquarters
and other police agencies. CCTNS should
be implemented by integrating all criminal
data and records into a Central Software
that will be installed in all police stations
across India. It will help the agencies in
detection of crime as well as those who
have committed the crime. It is a faster and
easier access to crime and criminals,
particularly,
when
Cyber
crimes
are
expanding their branches throughout the
country. Hence, electronification of history
sheeters with the help of CCTNS would be
a boon to the criminal investigation concept
as a whole.

FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE

18. A First Information Report dated
04.05.1998
was
lodged
against
the
petitioner and one Chhedi Lal Gupta that
was registered at Case Crime No.118 of
1998, under Section 489 IPC at Police
Station Audyogik Kshetra Naini, District
Allahabad. The allegation against the
accused persons was that they were found
in possession of forged or counterfeit
currency
notes.
Investigation
was
conducted by the police and a charge sheet
dated 07.07.1999 was submitted against
both the accused persons, on which, the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII,
Allahabad took cognizance on 06.06.2000
and the petitioner was summoned to face
trial of Criminal Case No.1087 of 2006
(State of U.P. Vs. Chhedi Lal and others).

19. Challenging the proceedings of
aforesaid criminal case, the petitioner filed
an Application U/S 482 No.9185 of 2009
(Aftab Alam Vs. State of U.P. and others)
before this Court. The said application was
allowed on 06.09.2018. It is pleaded in the
writ petition that the petitioner filed a
certified
copy
of
the
order
dated
06.09.2018
before
the
concerned
Magistrate, who, in compliance of the order
of this Court, quashed the proceedings of
Case
Case
No.1087
of
2006,
vide
Annexure No.4 to the writ petition.

20. The case of the petitioner, as
pleaded in the writ petition, is that apart
from the aforesaid solitary case registered
at Crime No.118 of 1998, no other case is
4 All. Aftab Alam Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
861
pending against him, however, the history
sheet is still being kept open, which is not
just and proper. Application of Regulation
228 of 'U.P. Police Regulations' (for short
'the Regulations') has also been pleaded
and the main ground for claiming reliefs is
quashing of the proceedings of the solitary
case No.1087 of 2006, as aforesaid.

COUNTER AFFIDAVIT

21. The counter affidavit filed on behalf
of the State mainly contained that in view of
registration of case at Crime No.118 of 1998,
the petitioner is a criminal minded person
named in the first information report under
Section 489 IPC; that the history sheet has
been opened as per Regulation 238 of the
Regulations and that the petitioner's activities
are under surveillance in accordance with
law. It has not been disputed in the counter
affidavit that except the aforesaid case
registered at Crime No.118 of 1998, there is
any other case registered or pending against
the petitioner.

REJOINDER AFFIDAVIT

22. The rejoinder affidavit reiterates
the stand taken in the writ petition and it
has been pleaded that, as per Regulation
228, history sheets of a criminal should be
opened only for persons who are likely to
become habitual criminals or abettors of
such criminals, whereas the petitioner is a
well-educated person and not a criminal
minded person and the proceedings of
solitary case, registered at Crime No.118 of
1998, have already been quashed.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
PETITIONER

23. The submission of learned counsel
for the petitioner is primarily two fold:

(i) There being solitary case
registered at Crime No.118 of 1998 against
the petitioner, the proceedings whereof
have already been quashed pursuant to the
order
dated
06.09.2018
passed
in
Application No. 482 No. 9185 of 2009 and
the order of Magistrate dated 22.11.2018,
there is no justification to keep the history
sheet No.21-B open; and

(ii) As per Regulation 228 of the
Regulations, history sheet can be opened
only for persons who are or likely to
become habitual criminals or abettors of
such criminals and in so far as Class 'B'
history sheets are concerned, they are
issued for confirmed and professional
criminals of the categories specified in the
said Regulations, whereas the petitioner
does not fall within any of the Clause/ subclauses of the said Regulations and, hence,
the history sheet is liable to be quashed.

24. Learned counsel for the petitioner,
in support of his submissions, has placed
reliance on a Division Bench decision of
this Court in the case of Krishna Chandra
Singh Vs. State of U.P.: 2015 (11) ADJ
219 and he submits that, under identical
circumstances, this Court had quashed the
history sheet of Class 'B' by relying upon
Regulation 228. He has also placed reliance
on
other
judgments
of
this
Court
pronounced in Mohammad Naeem @
Neem Babu: 2015 LawSuit (All) 3335;
Sanjay Karnwal Vs. State of U.P.:
2010(7) ADJ 510; Mohd. Safi Vs. State of
Uttarakhand: 2013 (2) UD 600; and
Zaved Akhtar Vs. State of U.P. and 3
others passed in Criminal Misc. Writ
Petition No.14644 of 2019, decided on
21.11.2022, rendered on the same issue.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
STATE
862 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

25. Per contra, Mrs. Manju Thakur,
learned AGA-1 along with Sri G.P. Singh,
learned AGA-1, have vehemently opposed
the writ petition and submitted that there
being no provision under any law including
U.P. Police Regulations whereunder the
police authorities are under any obligation
or compulsion to close the history sheet,
the prayer for quashing the history sheet is
thoroughly misconceived and cannot be
granted. They further submitted that apart
from
Regulation
228,
two
more
Regulations, i.e. Regulations 232 and 234
need to be looked into which provide that
history sheet of Class 'B' will remain
continuously open and the concerned
history
sheeter
would
remain
under
surveillance until his death.

U.P. POLICE REGULATIONS

26. Having heard the learned counsel
for the parties, it is necessary to throw light
on the provisions concerning history sheets,
as applicable in the State of U.P., as
contained under U.P. Police Regulations.
Relevant Regulations are reproduced as
under:-

228. Part V consists of history
sheets. These are the personal records of
criminals
under
surveillance.
Historysheets should be opened only for persons
who are or likely to become habitual
criminal or abettors of such criminals.
There will be two classes of history-sheets:

(1) Class A history-sheets for
dacoits, burglars, cattle-thieves, railwaygoods
wagon
thieves,
and
abettors
thereof.

(2) Class B history-sheets for
confirmed and professional criminals who
commit crimes other than dacoity, burglary,
cattle-theft, and theft from railway goods
wagons, e.g., professional cheats and other
experts for whom criminal personal files
are
maintained
by
the
Criminal
Investigation Department, poisoners, cattle
poisoners,
railway
passenger
thieves,
bicycle
thieves,
expert
pick-pockets,
forgers,
coiners,
cocaine
and
opium
smugglers, hired ruffians and goondas,
telegraph
wire-cutters,
habitual
illicit
distillers and abettors thereof.

History-sheets of both classes
will be maintained in similar form, but
those for class B will be distinguished by a
red bar marked at the top of the first page.
No history-sheet of class B may be
converted into a history-sheet of class A,
though should be the subject of a historysheet of class B be found to be also
addicted to dacoity, burglary, cattle-theft or
theft from railway goods wagons. A class,
as well as B class, surveillance may under
paragraph 238 be applied to him. In the
event of a class A history-sheet man
becoming addicted to miscellaneous crime
his history-sheet may be converted into a
class B history-sheet with the sanction of
the Superintendent.

229.
This
classification
of
history-sheets as A and B is based on the
principle that, whereas there is always hope
of a dacoit, burglar, or cattle thief or
railway goods wagons thief mending his
ways, the expert miscellaneous criminal is
as a general rule incapable of reform. The
classification, therefore, solely on the kind
of crime to which suspects are addicted and
is designed to regulate only-

(1) the length of time for which a
suspect should ordinarily remain, under
surveillance in the absence of complaints
against him,
4 All. Aftab Alam Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
863

(2) the kind of surveillance which
his activities require.

The degree of surveillance of the
appropriate kind to be exercised over a
suspect
will
depend
not
on
his
classification, but on the extent to which he
is believed to be active at any particular
time.

230. If the subject of an A class
history-sheet is thought to be so dangerous
or incorrigible as to require more protracted
surveillance than the generality of his class,
he may be ''started' by the order of the
Superintendent. Here, again, the fact that a
history-sheet man is started will necessarily
indicate only that he is to be kept under
continuous surveillance for a longer period.
It will not necessarily indicate that his
surveillance while it lasts is to be more
intense. The aim is to concentrate the most
intense surveillance on the criminal,
whether starred or unstarred, who is
believed to be temporarily active.

Superintendent of district police
may not give orders for the starring of or
discontinuance of surveillance over any
history-sheeter of a railway police suspect
without
the
concurrence
of
the
Superintendent of Government Railway
Police.

231. The subjects of historysheets of class A will unless they are
''starred' remain under surveillance for at
least two consecutive year of which they
have spent no part in jail. When the subject
of a history-sheet of class A whose name
has not been ''starred' who has never been
convicted of cognizable offence and has
not been in jail or suspected of any offence
or
absented
himself
in
suspicious
circumstances for two consecutive years his
surveillance will be discontinued, unless
for special reasons to be recorded in the
inspection book of the police station the
Superintendent decides that it should
continue.

When the subject of a historysheet of class A is ''starred' he will remain
starred for at least two consecutive years
during which he has not been in jail or been
suspected of a cognizable offence or had
any suspicious absence recorded against
him. At the end of that period if he is
believed to have reformed he will cease to
be ''starred' but will remain subject to
surveillance will be discontinued only if
during that period no complaints have been
recorded against him.

In closing the history-sheets of an
''unstarring' ex-convicts and especially exconvict dacoits great care should be
exercised.

232. 'B' Class History Sheets-
History-sheet
of
'B'
class
will
be
continuously open records and the subjects
of these sheets will, except for very special
reasons remain under surveillance until
death. This being so it is unnecessary to
'star' suspects of this class.

233.
The
discontinuance
of
surveillance of the subject of a historysheet does not entail closing that historysheet. A history-sheet which is only a
record of information need never be
considered closed. In the case of persons
whose surveillance is discontinued a note
should be made to this effect in the historysheet, and thereafter no periodical or other
entries need be made unless something
comes to notice which it is desirable to
enter in the sheet. Sheets persons whose
surveillance has been discontinued should
864 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
remain in these village crime-note book but
if the number is as much as to make the
volume too bulky, they should be kept in a
separate volume attached to the note-book.
They will only be destroyed on the death of
the subject of the sheet, or if, on opinion of
the Superintendent their further retention is
not likely to be of any value.

234. No history-sheet of class A
may be discontinued without the sanction
of the Superintendent of Police. If it is
denied to discontinue the surveillance of
the subject of a history sheet of class B, the
sanction of the Deputy Inspector-General
or Superintendent, Railway Police, must be
obtained. Proposals from station officers
for the discontinuance of history-sheets and
for the ''starring or unstarring' of a class
suspects must be made through the circle
inspector unless dealt with directly by a
gazetted officer in the course of an
inspection.

240.
History-sheets
of
both
classes may be opened (1) on suspicion or
(2) on conviction or acquittal. No historysheet may be opened without the orders of
the Superintendent of Police.

(1) On suspicion.- Whenever as a
result of investigation into a case of
dacoity, burglary, cattle theft from railway
goods
wagons
or
into
a
case
of
miscellaneous crime of a professional type,
the officer-in-charge of a police station
applies for the name of any person to be
entered in the crime register as reasonably
suspected, he must at the same time report
whether the suspect is under surveillance,
and if not, whether a history-sheet should
in his opinion be opened for him. Should
the
gazetted
officer-in-charge
of
a
subdivision on receiving such a report and
after such further inquiry as he may think
necessary consider that a history-sheet is
required he will forward the report to the
Superintendent who if he accepts the
proposal will define the class of historysheet to be opened and pass orders as to
whether the suspect should be ''starred'.
Similarly whenever an officer-in-charge of
a police station finds reason to believe,
otherwise than in the course of an
investigation, that any resident of his circle
is addicted to crime, or whenever a
gazetted officer or circle inspector for any
reason believes that a history-sheet for any
person is necessary a report must be
submitted to the Superintendent, who will
pass orders on it as laid down above.

(2) On conviction or acquittal.-
Whenever any person is sent for trial on a
charge of dacoity, burglary, cattle theft or
theft from a railway goods wagons or of
miscellaneous crime of a professional type,
the officer-in-charge of the police station
must state in his diary whether the accused
has a history-sheet and if not, whether he
recommends that a history-sheet should be
opened for him. It will be the duty of the
public prosecutor, if the accused is
acquitted to inform the Superintendent, in
his report on the acquittal or otherwise,
whether in his opinion a history-sheet is
required. On this the Superintendent will
pass any orders to the station officer that
may be necessary. If the accused is
convicted, the public prosecutor must, in
the remarks column of the daily report of
convictions and acquittals (Form No. 107)
enter in red ink the words, ''On H.S.' if a
history-sheet is already open, or the letters
''H.S.' if he recommends that one should be
prepared. In either case he must prepare
and attach to the daily report of convictions
and acquittals a P.R. slip (Form No. 313).
If a history-sheet is already open or if the
4 All. Aftab Alam Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
865
Superintendent agrees that a history-sheet
should be opened he will sign this P.R. slip
and initial the letters ''H.S.' or ''On H.S.' on
the daily report of convictions and
acquittals. The public prosecutor will then
communicate the Superintendent's orders
for the opening of a history-sheet to the
police station concerned and will forward
the P.R. slip to the Superintendent of Jail. If
no history-sheet is opened and if the
Superintendent does not agree that one
should be prepared, he will not sign the
P.R. slip, which will be cancelled.

ANALYSIS

27. While this Court is satisfied that
opening of the history in the year 2009
against the petitioner was not illegal
inasmuch as, by that time, there was a case
registered against the petitioner at Crime
No.118 of 1998 in which cognizance was
also taken by the concerned Magistrate in
the year 2000, however, the proceedings of
said case were quashed after eighteen years
in the year 2018, as aforesaid, and,
therefore, this Court finds that the grounds
for claiming reliefs as prayed in the present
writ petition are based upon subsequent
developments.
The
Court,
therefore,
proceeds to examine as to whether the
history sheet can be closed or quashed or
whether any other course recognized under
the law is still open for the police
authorities.

28. A bare perusal of Regulation 228
would show that the language used therein
is unambiguous and there is a clear
mandate that history sheet can be opened
only for persons who are or likely to
become habitual criminal or abettors of
such criminals. Classification of history
sheets in Class 'A' and Class 'B' is also
clearly spelt out and since challenge in the
present writ petition has been laid to history
sheet of Class 'B', sub-regulation (2) of
Regulation 228 needs a look that clearly
provides that such history sheet can be
opened for 'confirmed and professional
criminals' who commit crimes other than
dacoity, burglary, cattle-theft etc etc, as
described in the said sub-regulation.

29. Regulation 232, however, casts an
obligation upon the authorities to keep
history sheet continuously open and to keep
the history sheeter under surveillance until
death. However, for such an action, the
authorities have to record special reasons.
Regulation 233 clearly provides that
discontinuance of surveillance of the
subject of a history sheet does not entail
closing of the history sheet itself and the
history sheet which is only a record of
information need never be considered as
closed. It casts a further obligation on the
authorities to make a note as regards
discontinuance of surveillance on the
history sheet and, thereafter, no periodical
or other entries need be made unless
something comes to the notice of the
authorities which is desirable to be entered
in the sheet.

30. This Court has respectfully
perused the judgments, relied upon by the
petitioners, and it transpires that this Court
in
those
cases
took
note
of
the
circumstances under which history sheets
were
opened
against
the
concerned
offenders and, for the reasons stated in the
judgments, history sheet was either directed
to be closed or the authorities were directed
to wipe out the name of the concerned
offender from the surveillance register.
However, in the present case, the question
to be considered is as to whether the history
sheet of Class- 'B' can be closed forever or
can it be quashed in exercise of writ
866 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.

31. This Court finds that there is no
provision under U.P. Police Regulations for
closure of a history sheet of Class-'B'. The
Regulations, as noted above, however, cast
an obligation upon the police authorities to
record SPECIAL REASONS TO KEEP
AN
OFFENDER
UNDER
SURVEILLANCE UNTIL HIS DEATH.
As a matter of fact, Regulation 233 clearly
provides that a history sheet which is only a
record of information need never be
considered as closed. Nevertheless, making
of various entries on the open history sheet
is subject to periodical review, as noted
above.

32. In Dhananjaya Reddy Vs. State
of Karnataka 2001 (4) SCC 9, the
Supreme Court held that where a power is
given to do a certain thing in a certain
manner, the thing must be done in that way
or not at all. In Commissioner of Income
Tax,
Mumbai
Vs.
Anjum
M.H.
Ghaswala 2002 (1) SCC 633, it was held
that when a statute vests certain power in
an authority to be exercised in a particular
manner then the said authority has to
exercise it only in the manner provided in
the statute itself. The judgments in Anjum
M.H. Ghaswala (supra) and Dhananjaya
Reddy (supra) have been followed in
Captain Sube Singh & others Vs. Lt.
Governor of Delhi & others 2004 (6)
SCC 440. Similar view was taken in State
of Jharkhand & others Vs. Ambay
Cements & another 2005 (1) SCC 368
and Competent Authority Vs. Barangore
Jute Factory & others 2005 (13) SCC
477.

33. The principle that what cannot be
done directly cannot be achieved indirectly
is also well settled and was elaborated by
the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu
and Others v. K. Shyam Sunder and
Others: (2011) 8 SCC 737 laying down
that what cannot be done directly, is not
permissible to be done obliquely, meaning
thereby, whatever is prohibited by law to
be done, cannot legally be effected by an
indirect and circuitous contrivance on the
principle of quando aliquid prohibetur,
prohibetur et omne per quod devenitur ad
illud. An authority cannot be permitted to
evade a law by 'shift or contrivance'."
(Also see Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh:
(1979) 1 SCC 560, M.C. Mehta v. Kamal
Nath: (2000) 6 SCC 213 and Sant Lal
Gupta v. Modern Coop. Group Housing
Society Ltd. (2010) 13 SCC 336).

CONCLUSION

34. In view of the above discussion
and the admitted position of fact that apart
from solitary case registered at Crime
No.118 of 1998, proceedings whereof have
already been quashed, there being no other
case registered against the petitioner, the
Deputy Inspector General of Police of the
Range (D.I.G. concerned) has to record
special reasons as to why despite quashing
of the solitary case, the petitioner is still
required to be kept under continuous
surveillance. For the said purpose, it is
open for the petitioner to submit a
representation before the D.I.G. concerned
bringing on record all the facts and
proceedings which are sufficient for the
D.I.G. to form an opinion to keep or not to
keep the petitioner under surveillance and
to make relevant entry on the history sheet
as per Regulations 232 and 233.

35. This Court also notices that apart
from
seeking
a
relief
of
certiorari
requesting quashing of history sheet of
4 All. Rakhi @ Rekha Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
867
Class 'B', the petitioner has prayed for a
direction for the respondents not to keep
him under surveillance and the basis of
petitioner's claim is apparently quashing of
the solitary Criminal Case No.1087 of
2006, as noted above. While reserving the
judgment
in
the
present
case
on
06.02.2024, the learned counsel for the
petitioner was permitted to implead the
Deputy Inspector General of Police of the
Range to the writ petition. Necessary
impleadment was carried out on the same
day.

36. In view of the above discussion,
while no writ of certiorari can be issued
quashing the history sheet opened against
the petitioner, the petitioner is certainly
entitled to submit a representation before
the D.I.G. concerned, as noted above.
Therefore, giving liberty to the petitioner to
file a comprehensive representation before
the D.I.G. concerned along with certified
copy
of
this
order,
ventilating
his
grievance, as per the observations made in
the present order, the petition stands
disposed off with a direction that, in case,
such a representation is filed within a
period of one month from the date of
delivery of this judgment, the D.I.G.
concerned shall pass a reasoned and
speaking order strictly in consonance with
Regulations 232 and 233 and any other
relevant Regulation of the U.P. Police
Regulations, after dealing with each and
every ground raised before him by the
petitioner through his representation, within
a period of next two months after providing
opportunity of personal hearing to the
petitioner and after summoning relevant
records from the concerned police station.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 867
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.03.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURENDRA SINGH-I, J.

Criminal Revision No. 167 of 2023

Rakhi @ Rekha ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Jayant Kumar, Sri Kanhiya Lal Chauhan

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A., Sri Sandeep Kumar Srivastava

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973
-
Section
127
-
Maintenance - Enhancement of - Counsel
for revisionist submitted that criminal
revision
has
been
filed
challenging
quantum of maintenance awarded, which
is meagre considering monthly income of
opposite party no.2. (husband ) who is
serving in Indian Navy and earning
Rs.35,000
-
40,000
pm
-
Further
contended that trial Court ought to have
fixed at least 25% of net monthly income
as maintenance, whereas it awarded only
Rs.4,000/- till date of order and thereafter
Rs.5,000/-, without assigning any reason
- Earlier, trial Court had ex parte granted
Rs.12,000/- pm as interim maintenance,
later on opposite party no.2 filed recall
application u/s 126(2) Cr.P.C., allowed,
hence, there was no justification for
awarding lesser amount - Held, salary slip
of opposite party no.2 shows deduction of
Rs.9,000/- towards personal loan, which
is not permissible and should be added in
his net monthly income.