# Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2015) 2 ILRA 599
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-04-20
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 23485 of 2014
- **Bench:** Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/arvind-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43247
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Art.-21-Opening
History
sheet-continuing
surveillancewithout
notice
or
opportunity-mere
pendency of one criminal case-held-contrary
to provisions of regulation 228 of Police
regulation-in absence of allegations of
abatement-order-not sustainable-quashed.
Held: Para-18
The impugned order except for a solitary
sentence
that
merely
because
the
petitioner has been acquitted, the same
cannot be a ground to close the history
sheet, we find no other valid reason given
for the same. There is no indication that
the petitioner is a habitual offender and
that he forms a class of criminals as
defined in Class- A of Regulation 228. It is
not the case of the respondents that the
petitioner is a criminal of Class-B of
Regulation 228 nor is there any such
finding to that effect. The impugned order,
therefore, is vitiated on this ground as it
does not objectively consider the case of
the petitioner in terms of the regulations
as directed by the High Court in the
judgment dated 3.10.2012.
Case Law discussed:
1992 (Suppl) (2) SCC page 84; AIR 1963 SC
1295; AIR 1975 SC page 1378; AIR 1981 SC
page 760.

## Text

2 All] Arvind Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
599
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.04.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. VIJAY LAKSHMI, J.
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 23485 of
2014
Arvind Singh
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Umesh Narain Sharma, Sri Chandan
Sharma
Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.
Constitution
of
India,
Art.-21-Opening
History
sheet-continuing
surveillancewithout
notice
or
opportunity-mere
pendency of one criminal case-held-contrary
to provisions of regulation 228 of Police
regulation-in absence of allegations of
abatement-order-not sustainable-quashed.
Held: Para-18
The impugned order except for a solitary
sentence
that
merely
because
the
petitioner has been acquitted, the same
cannot be a ground to close the history
sheet, we find no other valid reason given
for the same. There is no indication that
the petitioner is a habitual offender and
that he forms a class of criminals as
defined in Class- A of Regulation 228. It is
not the case of the respondents that the
petitioner is a criminal of Class-B of
Regulation 228 nor is there any such
finding to that effect. The impugned order,
therefore, is vitiated on this ground as it
does not objectively consider the case of
the petitioner in terms of the regulations
as directed by the High Court in the
judgment dated 3.10.2012.
Case Law discussed:
1992 (Suppl) (2) SCC page 84; AIR 1963 SC
1295; AIR 1975 SC page 1378; AIR 1981 SC
page 760.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap
Sahi, J.)
1.
This petition has been filed for
quashing of the impugned order dated
3.2.2014
passed
by
the
Senior
Superintendent of Police, Varanasi refusing
to close the history sheet of the petitioner on
certain grounds. The second prayer made is
for quashing of the order dated 24.7.2010
passed by the Deputy Inspector General of
Police, Varanasi Range, Varanasi, whereby
a representation of the petitioner for closing
the history sheet of the petitioner has been
rejected.
2. At the very outset, it may be
mentioned that a report was obtained from
Police Station Cantt, Varanasi about the
pendency of criminal cases against the
petitioner that has resulted in the opening
of the history sheet against him under the
U.P. Police Regulations. The extract of
the said Regulations under Chapter XX
have been filed along with the writ
petition as Annexure 19. The history sheet
of the petitioner is numbered as 75-A.
According
to
Regulation
223,
Registration and Surveillance of Bad
Characters known as a crime note book
shall be kept at every police station
containing the information of the crime
and criminals referred to therein. The
entries have to be made in five parts and
Part (V) has to be maintained in
accordance
with
the
instructions
contained in paragraph 228 of the U.P.
Police Regulations. This proceeds to
describe the classification of history
sheets, namely, Class-A and Class-B
history sheets. Class-A history sheet is for
dacoits, burglars, cattle thieves, railway-
600
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
goods wagon thieves and abettors thereof.
Class-B history-sheets are for confirmed
and professional criminals who commit
crimes other than dacoity, burglary, cattletheft as well as theft from railway goods
wagons, professional cheats and other
experts like poisoners, railway passenger
thieves, bicycle thieves and the like
mentioned in the aforesaid regulations.
3. It may be noted that the historysheet of the petitioner was opened on
26.9.2002 when three criminal cases had
been registered against the petitioner,
namely, Case Crime No.101 of 1984,
under
Sections 457/380 IPC, Police
Station Chaubepur, District Varanasi,
Case Crime No.494 of 1993, under
Sections 364, 506 IPC, Police Station
Cantt, Varanasi and the third case was
Case Crime No.357 of 2000, under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC, Police
Station Cantt, Varanasi.
4. Two further cases after the
opening of the history-sheet came into
existence, namely, Case Crime No.311 of
2003 where the petitioner was called upon
to fill a bond for good behaviour under
Section 110 Cr.P.C., Police Station Cantt,
Varanasi and the fifth case was registered
against the petitioner which was tried and
ultimately the petitioner was acquitted on
16.12.2009 giving him the benefit of
doubt. A copy of the judgment in Case
Crime No.25 of 2009, Sessions Trial
No.415 of 2009, is Annexure 12 to the
writ petition. It is in this background that
the history-sheet was continuing against
the petitioner.
5. The petitioner contends that
because of the continuance of such
history-sheet he is unable to get a
character certificate for the purpose of
entering into any contract with the
Government or such other facilities and
consequently he came up before this
Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
No.8794 of 2010 challenging the validity
of the maintenance of the history-sheet on
the strength of the aforesaid cases.
6. This Court after having noticed
the decision in the case of Chaman Lal
Vs. State of U.P., 1992 (Suppl) (2) SCC
Page 84 disposed of the writ petition
observing that the petitioner may file a
representation
before
the
Senior
Superintendent of Police, Varanasi, who
shall consider it and pass appropriate
orders within two months. A copy of the
said
judgment
dated
24.5.2010
is
extracted hereinunder :-
"The petitioner has, by means of the
present petition, challenged the validity of
maintaining the history sheet of class A
opened by the Police of P.S. Cantt.
against the petitioner.
We have heard learned counsel for
the petitioner and also learned A.G.A.
It would appear from the record that
the police of Cantt. opened the history
sheet of the petitioner on the basis of four
cases registered at case crime no. 101 of
1984, under Sections 457 and 380 I.P.C.,
case crime 494 of 1993, under Sections
364 and 506 I.P.C., case crime no.357 of
2000, under Sections 147,148,149 and
307 I.P.C., and case crime no.311 of
2003, under Section 110 Cr.P.C.
The argument of the learned counsel
for the petitioner that the history sheet of
Class A can be opened when it has been
established by suspicion or conviction
that a suspect is an active and prominent
member of a gang of dacoits. It is further
argued that mere suspects should not be
starred until established that one has
2 All] Arvind Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
601
become
dangerous
and
confirmed
criminals and is unlikely to reform. The
next contention is that the case of the
petitioner is not covered by paragraph
228 of the U.P. Police Regulations. Per
contra, learned A.G.A drew attention of
the Court to the decision in Chaman Lal
v. state of U.P. 1992 supp (2) SCC 84 (I)
and suggested that the matter should be
relegated to the authority concerned for
deciding whether the history sheet should
be closed or should be continued.
We are also of the view that the
interest of justice would be best served if
the matter is relegated to the Police
authority to take appropriate decision in
the matter.
In view of the above, it is directed
that in case the petitioner prefers a
representation
before
the
S.S.P/S.P.Varanasi
alongwith
a
self
attested copy of the writ petition within
two weeks from today, the authority
concerned shall consider it according to
law and make appropriate order within
two months.
The petition is disposed of in terms of
the above directions."
7. It appears that thereafter the
Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Varanasi proceeded to pass the order
dated 24.7.2010, a copy whereof is
Annexure 1 to the writ petition whereby it
was not found feasible to close the
history-sheet in view of the fact that the
petitioner was involved in criminal
activities even though he had been
acquitted in the case that recorded in
acquittal in his favour in 2009. The said
order has also been challenged in the
present writ petition.
8. The petitioner approached this
Court by filing Criminal Misc. Writ
Petition No.17263 of 2010 questioning
the correctness of the opening of the
history-sheet dated 26.9.2002 as also the
order of the Deputy Inspector General of
Police dated 24.7.2010 indicated above.
The said writ petition was disposed of
with a direction that the petitioner shall
move a fresh application before the
Deputy Inspector General of Police for
discontinuance of the history-sheet in
terms of Regulation 234 disclosing the
fact of his acquittal in Case Crime No.25
of 2009 referred to hereinabove. The
judgement dated 3.10.2012 is extracted
hereinunder :-
"Petitioner before this Court seeks
quashing of the order dated 26.09.2002,
whereby a history-sheet was opened in the
name of the petitioner under Regulation
228 of the Police Regulations at Police
Station-Cantt., District- Varanasi, as also
the order dated 24.07.2010, whereby his
application for closer of the history-sheet
was rejected by the Deputy Inspector
General of Police, Varanasi.
The order passed by the Deputy
Inspector General of Police records that
for the offences the history-sheet was
opened in the name of the petitioner, such
action was justified. It has also been
recorded that in the year 2009 the
petitioner was involved in offences under
Section 452, 323, 504, 506, 307 IPC,
being Case Crime No. 25 of 2009, duly
registered at Police Station- Sarnath.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted
that on the date the order was passed he
had already been acquitted of the
aforesaid offences by the competent
Court. He further submits that against the
order of acquittal neither any appeal nor
revision has been filed.
In the facts and circumstances of the
case, petitioner is at liberty to make a
602
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
fresh application before the Deputy
Inspector
General
of
Police
for
discontinuance of the history-sheet, as per
the provisions of Regulation 234 of the
Police Regulations, disclosing the fact of
his acquittal in the aforesaid Case Crime
No. 25 of 2009.
Accordingly, the writ petition is
disposed of by providing that the
petitioner may file a fresh application
before the Deputy Inspector General of
Police, Varanasi within two weeks from
today along with certified copy of this
order. On such application being filed,
the Deputy Inspector General of Police
shall consider and decide the same by
means of a reasoned speaking order,
preferably within eight weeks thereafter."
9. The petitioner thereafter appears
to have filed his representation and
according to the relevant government
orders as well as the Police Regulations,
the matter was to be looked into by the
Superintendent of Police as also per the
judgment of the Apex Court in Chaman
Lal's case. At this juncture it will be
appropriate to quote the order passed in
the case of Chaman Lal (supra) which is
as follows :-
"1992 Supp (2) Supreme Court
Cases 84 (I)
(BEFORE
K.
JAGANNATHA
SHETTY, S.C. AGRAWAL AND R.C.
PATNAIK, JJ.)
CHAMAN LAL ....Appellant;
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
....Respondents.
Civil Appeal No.2471 of 1982,
decided on December 4, 1991
Police - U.P. Police Regulations -
Paras 228 & 240 - History Sheet- Opened
against appellant -Writ petition filed by
appellant under Art. 226 dismissed by
High Court - Having regard to Paras 228
and 240, the facts and circumstances of
the case, held, no interference of Supreme
Court called for in appeal- Appellant
could make a representation to District
Superintendent of Police to close the
History Sheet on the ground that nothing
found
against
him
since
then
-
Constitution of India, Arts. 136, 226
Appeal disposed of R-M/11257/SR
ORDER
It is not in dispute that the police
under the U.P. Police Regulation has
opened a 'History Sheet' against the
appellant. Challenging the validity of
maintaining
the
History
Sheet,
the
appellant moved the High Court for relief.
The High Court has rejected his writ
petition. In this appeal, it is contended
that maintaining the History Sheet against
the appellant does not fall within the
paragraph
228
of
the
UP
Police
Regulations. We have perused the said
paragraph and also the provisions of
paragraph 240. We have also considered
the facts and circumstances of the case.
We are of the opinion that no interference
is called for in this case. However, it is
open
to
the
appellant
to
make
representation
to
the
District
Superintendent of Police to close the
History Sheet on the ground that nothing
has been alleged or attributed against him
since then. If any such representation is
made, the Superintendent of Police shall
consider it according to law and make
appropriate
order.
With
these
observations, the appeal is disposed of."
10. Accordingly, it appears that the
Senior Superintendent of Police, Varansai
entertained the representation of the
petitioner in terms of the directions issued
by the High Court and as per Regulation
2 All] Arvind Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
603
234 of the U.P. Police Regulations.
Regulation 234 is extracted hereinunder :-
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."
11. Sri Umesh Narain Sharma,
learned senior counsel for the petitioner,
submits that the impugned order passed
by the Senior Superintendent of Police is
absolutely
tangent
and
based
on
absolutely new grounds about which the
petitioner was never put to notice. He also
submits that the ground now mentioned
by the Senior Superintendent of Police for
not closing the history sheet is not tenable
and is not in conformity with the U.P.
Police Regulations. He has also invited
the attention of the Court to the
Regulation 231 to contend that there
exists no material or any element that may
allow the continuance of history sheet of
Class- A.
12. In view of the aforesaid facts as
on date the only case that can be stated to
be pending is Case Crime No.357 of 2000
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC
where there is neither any conviction nor
any trial as proceedings in the said case
have been stayed at the instance of
another co-accused and not at the instance
of the petitioner.
13. Sri Sharma has further relied on
three judgments of the Apex Court in this
regard, namely AIR 1963 SC 1295,
Kharak Singh Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1975
SC Page 1378 Gobind Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh and AIR 1981 SC Page
760 Mahak Singh Vs. State of Punjab &
Haryana to contend that the fundamental
rights of the petitioner are being violated
by continuance of such surveillance and
maintenance of history sheet. He also
contends that the principles of natural
justice have been violated and the history
sheet is being continued contrary to the
provisions of the U.P. Police Regulations.
14. He has then invited the attention
of the Court to the counter affidavit filed
on behalf of the State, particularly,
paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the affidavit to
urge that the reasons given in the counter
affidavit
clearly
indicate
that
the
allegations are without any basis and
secondly, if the petitioner's wife is
running a licensed bar, then on a mere
possibility of the association of the
petitioner with criminals or criminal
activities, the petitioner cannot be said to
be a history sheeter. He submits that this
ground at least cannot be available for
either
opening
a
history
sheet
or
continuing it as no such element of mere
apprehension has been defined in the U.P.
Police Regulations authorizing the police
to open a history sheet or continue the
same on such grounds.
15. A rejoinder affidavit has been
filed denying the allegations made in the
counter affidavit and it has been urged
that a miscarriage of justice has occurred
on account of a total non-application of
mind by the Senior Superintendent of
Police and continuing the history sheet on
a
perverted
misapprehension
which
604
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
cannot be sustained in law in view of the
pronouncements of the Apex Court and
the
provisions
of the
U.P.
Police
Regulations, referred to hereinabove.
16. Sri Nitin Sharma has vehemently
opposed the petition and he urges that the
petitioner is a criminal and was habitual
in indulging in criminal activities as is
evident from the criminal cases against
him. Even otherwise he is running a
licensed bar in the name of his wife and
his association with anti social elements
cannot be ruled out as has been indicated
in the counter affidavit. It is neither
desirable nor feasible to close the history
sheet at this stage. He therefore submits
that the orders impugned do not require
any judicial review by this court and the
petition deserves to be dismissed.
17. At the very outset, we may put
on record that there is no occasion for this
Court now to consider quashing of the
order dated 24.7.2010 as the reasons
given therein are not the reasons for
continuing the history sheet as per the
subsequent order dated 3.2.2014. The
impact of the order dated 24.7.2010
therefore vanishes after this Court had
directed
the
concerned
competent
authority to dispose of the representation
to be filed by the petitioner afresh under
the judgment dated 3.10.2012 in Writ
Petition No.17263 of 2010. Since the said
order looses its efficacy after the passing
of the order dated 3.2.2014 pursuant to
the directions of this Court, as mentioned
above, it is not necessary for us to
consider the validity or otherwise of the
said order which has outlived itself.
18. Coming to the impugned order
dated 3.2.2014, we find that this order
merely mentions that if the petitioner has
been acquitted in the criminal cases, the
same cannot by itself be a ground to close
the history sheet. No reason has been
given as to why his involvement in the
said criminal cases is being considered to
be a valid ground for continuance of the
history sheet. For this, one has to fall back
upon the Police Regulations which
provide the conditions under which a
history sheet has to be opened or
discontinued. It is correct that Regulation
240 of the U.P. Police Regulations also
authorizes the continuance of a history
sheet on suspicion, but the suspicion also
has to be founded on some material or
else if the conclusions drawn by the
authorities are vague then it would be hit
by Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution
of India. This has been clearly ruled by
the Apex Court and is evident from a
conspectus of the decisions that have been
relied upon by Sri Sharma, learned
counsel for the petitioner and indicated
hereinabove. History sheets cannot be
opened or continued except when the
same fulfils the criteria of the Police
Regulations referred to hereinabove. The
impugned order except for a solitary
sentence
that
merely
because
the
petitioner has been acquitted, the same
cannot be a ground to close the history
sheet, we find no other valid reason given
for the same. There is no indication that
the petitioner is a habitual offender and
that he forms a class of criminals as
defined in Class- A of Regulation 228. It
is not the case of the respondents that the
petitioner is a criminal of Class-B of
Regulation 228 nor is there any such
finding to that effect. The impugned
order, therefore, is vitiated on this ground
as it does not objectively consider the
case of the petitioner in terms of the
regulations as directed by the High Court
in
the
judgment
dated
3.10.2012.
2 All] Sunil Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
605
19. The other ground given by the
Senior Superintendent of Police is that
there is a strong possibility of commission
of offences by the petitioner as he is likely
to be in association with anti social
elements who keep coming to the bar for
which licence is owned by his wife.
Firstly, the petitioner does not appear to
have been put to any such notice about
any such activity in which the petitioner is
involved of associating himself with anti
social elements and, therefore, the order
dated 3.2.2014 is in violation of principles
of
natural
justice.
Secondly,
even
assuming for the sake of arguments that
there was any information available to the
Senior Superintendent of Police about
visits of anti social elements to the bar
licensed in the name of the petitioner's
wife, then such information is not disclosed
either in the impugned order nor is it
disclosed in the counter affidavit. There is no
indication as to who are those anti social
elements who allegedly participated in the
commission of offences or are habitual
offenders either within Class-A or Class-B of
the offences mentioned under Regulation
228. There is no indication of any offence
having been abetted by the petitioner in
association with any such anti social
elements after the petitioner's wife has
opened
the
licensed
bar.
In
such
circumstances, the impugned order suffers
from perversity and nonobjectivity. The
impugned order dated 3.2.2014, therefore,
cannot be sustained for the reasons aforesaid.
20. We accordingly allow the
petition and quash the order dated
3.2.2014 with a direction to the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Varanasi to pass
a fresh order keeping in view the
observations made hereinabove within a
period of three months.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.04.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.
C.M.W.P. No. 23887 of 2009
Sunil Kumar Dubey
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri P.N. Tripathi, Sri Harsh Kumar, Sri Satish
Chandra Pandey, Sri Shailesh Pandey, Sri
Yamuna Pandey
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Vivek Singh
U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921-Section
9-A-Power of Government-interference with
appointment and cancellation regarding non
teaching staff-either commission or the State
Government-no
authority
to
interfere-if
commission triangulated it power-shall be
without jurisdiction-petitioner's appointment
on post of class 4th employee after due
compliance of recruitment procedure-duly
approved by DIOS as well as regional
committee-without canceling the order-order
impugned passed by principal in compliance
of direction of commission-illegal quashed.
Held: Para-28 & 29
28. In view of the above discussion I hold
that the State Government does not have
any power under sub. section (4) of Section
9 of the Act No. II of the 1921, in respect of
recruitment of teachers or non teaching
staff or Class IV employees as the power is
vested to various educational authorities in
respect of recruitment of the teachers and
non teaching staff.
29. After careful consideration of the
material on record I am of the view that
the termination order passed by the
Principal of the College in compliance of