# Devend Kumar @ Devendra Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 1 ILRA 23
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-12-06
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 14672 of 2020
- **Bench:** Suneet Kumar, Syed Waiz Mian
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/devend-kumar-devendra-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49133
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Constitution of India,
1950-Article 226- UP Police Regulation -
Rule 231 - Quashing of history-sheetPetitioner categorically pleaded that he
has been acquitted in one matter and
discharged in other case too-Continuing
the history-sheet of the petitioner in view
of
Regulation
231
of
the
Police
Regulations, has not been justified by the
State as the petitioner has not indulged in
any repetitive criminal activity-No other
case has been lodged after 2007-the
approach in not reviewing the historysheet of the petitioner by stating that
petitioner is 'of criminal mind' clearly
shows the highhandedness of the state
respondents-Hence, the history sheet is
quashed.(Para 1 to 9)
24 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1 All. Devend Kumar @ Devendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
23

(5) ..........

(6) Where there is an express legal
bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the
Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution
and
continuance
of
the
proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing
efficacious
redress
for
the
grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with mala fide and/or
where the proceeding is maliciously instituted
with an ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance on the accused and with a view to
spite him due to private and personal
grudge."

38. Earlier the Supreme Court in State
of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and others
held as follows: -

"7. .....In the exercise of this
wholesome power, the High Court is entitled
to quash a proceeding if it comes to the
conclusion that allowing the proceeding to
continue would be an abuse of the process of
the Court or that the ends of justice require
that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The
saving of the High Court's inherent powers,
both in civil and criminal matters, is designed
to achieve a salutary public purpose which is
that a court proceeding ought not to be
permitted to degenerate into a weapon of
harassment or persecution. In a criminal case,
the veiled object behind a lame prosecution,
the very nature of the material on which the
structure of the prosecution rests and the like
would justify the High Court in quashing the
proceeding in the interest of justice....."

(Principle reiterated in Anand
Kumar Mohatta and another vs. State
(NCT of Delhi), Department of Home
and another.)

39. Having regard to the law
enunciated herein above and the facts and
circumstances of the case, the writ petition
is liable to succeed. Accordingly, the writ
petition stands allowed. The impugned FIR
and the consequent police report is set aside
and quashed.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 23
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE SYED WAIZ MIAN, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 14672 of 2020

Devend Kumar @ Devendra Kumar
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Pavan Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Constitution of India,
1950-Article 226- UP Police Regulation -
Rule 231 - Quashing of history-sheetPetitioner categorically pleaded that he
has been acquitted in one matter and
discharged in other case too-Continuing
the history-sheet of the petitioner in view
of
Regulation
231
of
the
Police
Regulations, has not been justified by the
State as the petitioner has not indulged in
any repetitive criminal activity-No other
case has been lodged after 2007-the
approach in not reviewing the historysheet of the petitioner by stating that
petitioner is 'of criminal mind' clearly
shows the highhandedness of the state
respondents-Hence, the history sheet is
quashed.(Para 1 to 9)
24 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
1. Sanjay Karnwal Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (2010)
70 ACC 507

2. Guru Bux Singh Bakshi Vs St. of U.P. (1994)
LAWS(ALL) 185

(Delivered by Hon'ble Suneet Kumar, J.
&
Hon'ble Syed Waiz Mian, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Ratnendu Kumar Singh,
learned A. G. A. for the State.

2. The petitioner claims to be working
as Estate Manager in Modi Pon Limited
Hapur Road, Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad; by
means of the present writ petition he is
seeking quashing of the history-sheet 31A,
dated
20.8.2007,
Police
Station-Modi
Nagar, district-Ghaziabad.

3. The petitioner has categorically
pleaded that in Case Crime No. 527 of
2007, under Sections-147, 323, 342, 452,
448, 427 and 511 I. P. C., Police StationModi Nagar, district-Ghaziabad he has
been acquitted by the court concerned vide
judgement and order dated 4.9.2009. The
certified copy of the order has been placed
on record. In Case Crime No. 126 of 1986,
under Sections-147, 148, 323, 324 and 307
I. P. C., Police Station-Bhojpur, districtGhaziabad petitioner, after investigation
came to be discharged, and police report
was not filed against him.

4. In this backdrop, it is submitted
that the history-sheet no. 31 A opened on
20.8.2007, has not been reviewed in view
of the provisions of Regulation 231 of U. P.
Police Regulations, which reads as under:

"(231) The subjects of history
sheets 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 history
sheet of class A is ''starred' he will remain
starred for at least 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
any ''unstarring' ex-convicts and especially
ex-convicts dacoits great care should be
exercised."

5. From the above, it is apparent that
surveillance in respect of a person whose
history sheet of Class-A has been opened,
is to be continued for two consecutive years
subject to his not having been in jail for any
part of said two years. It is also clear from
above that history sheet beyond two years
cannot continue except by a special order
or unless he has been found to have been
convicted in any cognizable offence and
has been in jail or was suspected for any
offence or absented himself in suspicious
1 All. Surendre Kumar Chaturvedi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
25
circumstances during said two consecutive
years.

6. In the counter affidavit filed on
behalf of the State the averments made in
the writ petition have not been denied. In
para 7 of the counter affidavit it is stated
that since the petitioner is a criminal
minded man, he may again indulge in
criminal activity, therefore, history-sheet
has not been reviewed. Relevant part of
para 7 of the counter affidavit is extracted
below:

" .......... It is further submitted
that the petitioner is man of criminal mind
and he may again indulge in criminal
activities. All the averments to the contrary
made in paragraphs under reply are wrong
and denied. Photocopies of the D. C. R. C.
and C. C. T. N. S. reports of the petitioner
is being filed herewith and marked as
Annexure No. CA 1 to this affidavit."

7. Further the case of the petitioner is
that the record relating to the petitioner for
review of the continuance of the historysheet was not placed before the competent
authority.

8. In view of the decisions rendered
by the Division Bench of this Court in
Sanjay Karnwal Vs. State of U.P. and
others, [2010 (70) ACC 507] and Guru Bux
Singh Bakshi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh,
LAWS(ALL) 1994 1 85, we hold that
continuing
the
history-sheet
of
the
petitioner of Class-A in view of Regulation
231 of the Police Regulations, has not been
justified by the State as the petitioner
thereafter has not indulged in any repetitive
criminal activity. No other case has been
lodged or reported against the petitioner
after 2007.

9. The approach in not reviewing the
history-sheet of the petitioner by stating
that petitioner is 'of criminal mind' clearly
shows the highhandedness of the State
respondents. They have given go by to the
statutory Regulations.

10. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case, the writ petition
is allowed and history-sheet No. 31A, dated
20.8.2007
opened
at
Police
StationModinagar, district-Ghaziabad is quashed.

11. The approach of the State has
been casual. Further, there is dereliction of
the duty on the part of the Superintendent
of Police, Ghaizabad, for not reviewing the
history-sheet even when no criminal case is
pending against the petitioner since the
year, 2007 and not following the mandate
of the U. P. Police Regulations. Second
respondent is saddled with a cost at Rs.
20,000/- to be deposited with the High
Court
Legal
Services
Committee,
Allahabad, within eight weeks from the
date of order.

12. Learned A. G. A. to communicate
the order and ensure compliance.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 25
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MOHD. ASLAM, J.

Criminal Revision No. 359 of 2008

Surendre Kumar Chaturvedi ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist: