# Firoj Malik v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 1 ILRA 657
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-01-21
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 4818 of 2022
- **Bench:** Siddharth, Subhash Chandra Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/firoj-malik-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53054
- **Pages:** 19

## Headnote

Criminal Law-The Uttar Pradesh Police
Regulation-228 to 252 - The Constitution
of India, 1950-Article 14, 19 & 21-Opening
of HISTORY SHEET-Before opening of history
sheet of Class-A or Class-B against any citizen of
the St., he should be given one opportunity to
submit his objection before it is accepted by
higher official of the police and before such
officer directs opening of any Class of history
sheet against a citizen---While directing opening
of history sheet of Class -A and Class -B, the
higher police authority shall record his reasons
for directing opening of history sheet of any
Class after considering the objection of the
citizen filed against the report of the police
station.---Impugned
history
sheet/sheets
quashed---Directions issued to St. govt. to look
into the procedure of opening of history sheet
and
make/
issue
necessary
amendments/guidelines
for
providing
opportunity of objection to the person, against
whom, the police submits report recommending
the opening of history sheet of Class-A or ClassB
before
the
Senior
Police
Official---St.
Government will also provide for review of the
history sheets opened against the citizen, every
year, so that, in the cases where implication of
persons against whom history sheet was opened
and
who
have
been
subsequently
exonerated/acquitted of the criminal charges,
their history sheets are closed and shadow of
surveillance by police on their life and liberty
gets removed. (Para 26, 27 & 28)

Petitions allowed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,995 of 60,134. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39995 for what follows._

1 All. Firoj Malik Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
657
करने हेतु क र ग र में दनरूद्ध कर दिय ज ये तथ
प्रदतभूओां को दनयम नुस र उन्मोदचत कर दिय ज ए।

२५- क य थलय को दनिेश दिय ज त है दक दवच रण
न्य य लय को अदभलेख व पस भेज दिय ज य तथ इस आिेश की
एक प्रदततदलप सांबांदधत दवच रण न्य य लय को अनुप लन हेतु
अदवलांब प्रेदित करन सुदनदश्चत दकय ज य।
----------
(2025) 1 ILRA 657
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA
SHARMA, J.

Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 4818 of 2022
With
Crl. Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 4820 of 2022, 4870
of 2022 & 3586 of 2022

Firoj Malik ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri J.B. Singh, Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Criminal Law-The Uttar Pradesh Police
Regulation-228 to 252 - The Constitution
of India, 1950-Article 14, 19 & 21-Opening
of HISTORY SHEET-Before opening of history
sheet of Class-A or Class-B against any citizen of
the St., he should be given one opportunity to
submit his objection before it is accepted by
higher official of the police and before such
officer directs opening of any Class of history
sheet against a citizen---While directing opening
of history sheet of Class -A and Class -B, the
higher police authority shall record his reasons
for directing opening of history sheet of any
Class after considering the objection of the
citizen filed against the report of the police
station.---Impugned
history
sheet/sheets
quashed---Directions issued to St. govt. to look
into the procedure of opening of history sheet
and
make/
issue
necessary
amendments/guidelines
for
providing
opportunity of objection to the person, against
whom, the police submits report recommending
the opening of history sheet of Class-A or ClassB
before
the
Senior
Police
Official---St.
Government will also provide for review of the
history sheets opened against the citizen, every
year, so that, in the cases where implication of
persons against whom history sheet was opened
and
who
have
been
subsequently
exonerated/acquitted of the criminal charges,
their history sheets are closed and shadow of
surveillance by police on their life and liberty
gets removed. (Para 26, 27 & 28)

Petitions allowed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

1. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.9174 of 2022,
Aftab Alam Vs St. of U.P. & ors.

2. Mangi Lal Vs St. of M.P., (2004) 2 SCC 447

3. Munna Lal Gupta Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
reported in 2016 SCC Online All 3023

(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddharth, J.)

1. Heard Sri J.B. Singh and Sri
Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for
the petitioner; Ms. Manju Thakur, learned
A.G.A.-1 for the State-respondents and
perused the material on record.

2. The petitioners in Criminal
Misc. Writ Petition No. 4818 of 2022
(Firoz Malik), in Criminal Misc. Writ
Petition No. 4820 of 2022 (Sajid Malik),
and Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4870
of 2022 (Imran Malik) are sons of Nizam
Malik, the petitioner, in Criminal Misc.
Writ Petition No. 3586 of 2022. History
sheets have been opened against all of them
on the basis of implication in common
cases. Hence the above noted writ petitions
preferred by three sons and their father
658 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
named above are being decided by this
common judgement.

3. The above noted writ petitions
have been filed by all the petitioners
praying for quashing the impugned order
dated 16.6.2021 passed by respondent no.3,
Deputy Commissioner of Police, Greater
Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar,
whereby approval for opening history sheet
of Category-B against the petitioners has
been granted. Further prayer has been made
for directing the respondents to stop
surveillance of the petitioners in pursuance
of the aforesaid order passed by respondent
no.3.

4. The brief facts pleaded in the
writ petition no.4818 of 2022 are that the
petitioner is a businessman and has
established his firm/ company in the name
of Auctus E-recycling Solution Private
Limited, M/s Hindustan Metals and is
running his business and paying income tax
to the government. A politically motivated
Case Crime No.336 of 2019, Police Station
- Site-5, Geater Noida, was registered
against the father of the petitioner and
others under Section 2 of U.P. Gangsters
and Anti - Social Activities (Prevention)
Act, 1986, on 30.12.2019 without there
being any prior criminal history of his
father (Nizam Malik) against which he
approached this Court whereby Criminal
Misc. Writ Petition No. 140 of 2020 and
interim order was passed in his favour.
After counter affidavit was called in the
aforesaid writ petition, the police realized
that it would be difficult to resist the
challenge
to
the FIR
lodged under
Gangsters Act before this Court hence Case
Crime No.408 of 2020, under Section 386
IPC
was got
registered
against
the
petitioner, his brothers and father, named
above, on 30.7.2020 with thhe help of one,
Azad Kumar, at Police Station - Bita-2,
District Gautam Budh Nagar. Petitioner, his
father and brothers were enlarged on
anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case, but
subsequently charge-sheet was filed and it
was challenged before this Court by means
of Criminal Misc. 482 Cr.P.C. No. 11237 of
2021. On the basis of aforesaid FIR dated
30.7.2020, the petitioners were implicated
in a case under Gangsters Act, being Case
Crime No. 710 of 2020, Police Station -
Kasna (Now Bita-2), District Gautam Budh
Nagar on 10.11.2020 and they were
enlarged on bail by Special Judge, Gautam
Budh Nagar, on 10.3.2021. On the basis of
aforesaid criminal cases registered against
the petitioner, his father and brothers,
Station House Officer, Police Station -
Bita-2, District Gautam Budh Nagar,
submitted report before the respondent no.3
on 17.4.2021 for opening Class-'B' history
sheet of the petitioner, his father and
brothers. The respondent no.3 by the
impugned order dated 16.6.2021 has
accepted the same and directed opening of
history sheet bearing H.S. No. 21(B),
which is subject matter of challenge before
this Court. The petitioners made number of
representations against the same before the
respondent no.3 and higher authorities, but
in vain.

5. Learned counsel for the
petitioners has submitted that prior to
lodging
of
first
information
dated
30.7.2020, registered as Case Crime
No.408 of 2020, under Section 386 IPC,
Police Station Kasna (Now Bita-2), District
Gautam Budh Nagar, there were no
criminal antecedents of the petitioners. The
police has tried to connect the petitioners
with Sunder Bhati Gang or Navin Bhati
Gang, with whom the petitioner (Nizam
Malik) had no connection. Rather the
aforesaid gang had threatened the petitioner
1 All. Firoj Malik Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
659
and his family members and his brother,
Imran Malik, lodged FIR against three
members of Sunder Bhati Gang on
20.7.2018 registered as Case Crime No.203
of 2018, under Sections 386, 392 IPC and
the police submitted charge-sheet against
the accused on 19.9.2018. There are only
two cases registered against the petitioner
being Case Crime No.408 of 2020, under
Section 386 IPC and Case Crime No.710 of
2020, under Section 2/3(1) of U.P.
Gangsters Act, Police Station - Bita-2,
District Gautam Budh Nagar and opening of
history sheet of Category-B on their basis is
absolutely unjustified. According to Section
228 of U.P. Police Regulation, the history
sheet of criminals has been described in two
parts, Class-A and Class-B; Class-B history
sheets is opened for "confirmed and
professional criminals, who commit crime
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.
Class - B history sheets are opened for
criminals involved in cases of offences other
than these covered under Class-A. Opening
of
Class-B
history
sheet
against
the
petitioners is unjustified and order passed
against them deserves to be quashed.

6. Counter affidavit has been filed
on behalf of State-respondents stating
therein that vigil over the activities of the
petitioner is required in the interest of
society. The petitioner alongwith his father
and brothers have formed a gang which is
involved in number of crimes. Hence
opening of history sheet against the
petitioners is justified. They are habitual
and professional criminals.

7. Rejoinder affidavit has been
filed by learned counsel for the petitioner
wherein he has denied averments made in
the counter affidavit.

8. A Division Bench of this Court
in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.9174 of
2022, Aftab Alam Vs. State of U.P. and two
others at the occasion of considering the
object behind opening of history sheets as
follows:-

"3. When the term "historysheeter" 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
660 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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. 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
1 All. Firoj Malik Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
661
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
historysheeter's
habits,
associations,
income, expenses and occupation;
the police officers shall record
history-sheeter'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 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 record-subjects if they know
who they are. The history sheet is
supposed to be shared with the
Railway Police. If the historysheeter
moves
to
another
jurisdiction, the history sheet is
transferred to the new jurisdiction's
police department. Moreover, for
662 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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."

9. Provisions concerning history
sheets, as contained under U.P. Police
Regulations are reproduced as under:-

"228. Part V consists of
history sheets. These are the
personal records of criminals under
surveillance. History-sheets 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,
railway-goods 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
1 All. Firoj Malik Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
663
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 history-sheet 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 historysheet 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,
(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
history-sheets of class A will unless
they are ''starred' remain under
surveillance
for
at
least
two
consecutive year of which they
664 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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
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 historysheets of an ''unstarring' exconvicts and especially ex-convict
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
history-sheet
does
not
entail
closing
that
history-sheet.
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 history-sheet,
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
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 InspectorGeneral
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
1 All. Firoj Malik Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
665
acquittal. No history-sheet 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-incharge 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-incharge
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
history-sheet 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-incharge 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 historysheet is already open or if the
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
666 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Superintendent does not agree that
one should be prepared, he will not
sign the P.R. slip, which will be
cancelled.

10. It is clear from the pleadings
on record that the father of the petitioners,
Nizam Malik, was implicated in Case
Crime No.336 of 2019, under Section 2 of
U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station
Kasna (Bita-2), District Gautam Buddh
Nagar and on its basis, petitioner and his
brothers, namely, Sajid Malik and Imran
Malik and his father were subsequently
implicated in Case Crime No. 408 of 2020,
under Section 386 IPC by the same police
station and at the time of filing of writ
petitions and exchange of affidavits,
charge-sheet had been submitted against
the petitioners named above. Subsequently,
the petitioner and his brothers were
implicated in Case Crime No.710 of 2020,
under Sections 2/3(1) of U.P. Gangsters
Act.
There
are
no
other
criminal
antecedents of the petitioners on record. In
Case Crime No.336 of 2019, under Section
2 of Gangsters Act, only father of the
petitioners, namely, Nizam Malik, was
implicated and therefore, against three
petitioners, namely, Firoz Malik, Sajid
Malik and Imran Malik, there was only one
case registered at that time under Section
386 IPC. Aforesaid case shows that FIR
was lodged by two private persons, namly,
Azad Kumar, s/o Dharmvir Singh and
Rajkumar, s/o late Balraj, residents of
village Dadupur, Police Station Dankaur,
District Gautam Buddh Nagar. There is
allegation in the FIR against the petitioners
and five named and 9-10 unknown accused
regarding
commission
of
offence
of
extortion.
On
the
basis
of
above
implication, the petitioner and his brothers
were implicated in Case Crime No.710 of
2020, under Sections 2/3(1) of U.P.
Gangsters Act. The implication of the
father of the petitioners, namely, Nizam
Malik, under Section 2 of U.P. Gangsters
and Anti Social Activities Prevention Act,
1986 was without any base case. 54
persons were implicated in the aforesaid
case alongwith the father of the petitioners
and the arrest of the father of the petitioner
was stayed by this Court in Criminal Misc.
Writ Petition No. 140 of 2020 vide order
dated 10.1.2020.

11. To arrive at a just and proper
conclusion, it is necessary to consider what
are the parameters that should be followed
by the police before opening history-sheet
of a person.

12. There is a whole chapter in the
Police Regulation, namely, Chapter XX
with a Heading called "REGISTRATION
AND
SURVEILLANCE
OF
BAD
CHARACTERS".
The
entire
Chapter
consists of Regulation 223 to Regulation
276. Relevant Regulations for our purpose
would be Regulations 223 to 252. A perusal
of these regulations shows that the entire
tone and tenor of these regulations reflect
the then colonial state of mind as it speaks
of "Criminal Tribe Act", (an Act, which has
already been repealed in the year 1956) and
further provisions are also reflective of a
bygone colonial era where a group or
individuals or castes were recorded as
"criminal
tribes"
and
put
under
surveillance.
It
speaks
of
"habitual
criminals" and not only this it goes on to
say that there are certain types of criminals,
who are "incapable of reform".

13. The challenge here is limited,
but legality of the various provisions of the
"Police
Regulations",
appear
to
be
draconian. Reference to the seemingly
1 All. Firoj Malik Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
667
repulsive
provisions
of
the
Police
Regulations is to give an idea of the time
and era when such Regulations were
framed under the Police Act, 1861.

14. Regulation 228 of the Police
Regulations speaks about two classes of
history-sheets ''Class-A' and ''Class-B'.
Class A is a history-sheet for dacoits,
burglars,
cattle-thieves,
railway-goods
wagon thieves, and abettors thereof and
Class B is history-sheet 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.

15. For the authors of this Police
Regulations, the two set of crimes (i.e.
Class ''A' and Class ''B') are of entirely
different nature. Regulation 228 of the U.P.
Police Regulations further states that
though the manner in which the records of
surveillance and manner in which the
history-sheet is to be opened in Class ''A' or
in Class ''B' is the same, yet where a Class
''B' history-sheet is opened it has to be
opened with a red bar mark at the top of the
first page and never can Class ''B' historysheeter be converted into a Class ''A'
history-sheeter, though in case, a person,
who is under Class ''B' is also seen of
indulging in crime relating to history Class
''A' then surveillance of both types of
crimes have to be opened against him.
However, it is possible that the historysheeter of Class ''A' is converted into a
history-sheeter of Class ''B'.

16. Normally one has to assume
that since history-sheet of Class ''A' carries
with it crimes of greater magnitude such as
dacoity, burglary etc., the history-sheet
opened in such cases is of a more serious
nature. But this is not true, in fact reverse is
the truth. As per Regulation 229 of the U.P.
Police Regulations the classification of
history-sheet as "Class A" and "Class B"
are based on the principle that whereas
there is always hope of a dacoit, burglars,
or cattle thieves or railway-goods wagons
thief mending his ways, the expert
miscellaneous criminal (of Class ''B'
history-sheet)
is
as
a
general
rule
"incapable of reform". The classification,
therefore, is solely on the kind of crime to
which suspects are addicted to and it is
designed to regulate. Regulation 229 of the
Police Regulations reads as under:-

"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. (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."

17. There is a further classification
of history-sheeter of Class ''A'. The more
668 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
serious nature of the persons under
surveillance is the ''starred' category. Their
surveillance is more vigorous and have a
greater length of time whereas since a
history-sheeter of Class ''B' is "incapable of
reform", as per the authors of the Police
Regulations. The Regulations 232 of the
Police Regulations says that it is not
necessary to star suspects of Class ''B'.
Regulation 232 of the Police Regulations
reads as under:-

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

18. Director General of Police,
U.P.,
vide
communication
dated
03.11.2022, has framed guidelines under
the U.P. Police Regulation to be followed
by the respective Police Officers while
opening/reviewing the History Sheet Class
A category.

The guidelines reads as
thus:

"ज्ञ तव्य है दक उ०प्र० पुदलस रेगुलेशन के
पैर -228 में अभ्य दसक अपर दधयों एवां उसके िुष्प्रेरक
शीिथक के अन्तगथत िोनों वगों की दहस्ट्रीशीट को
वगीकृत दकय गय है। वगथ "क" की दहस्ट्रीशीट में
डकैत, सेंधम र, पशुचोर, रेल के दडब्बों के म ल चोर
और उसके िुष्प्रेरक वदणथत हैं, परन्तु िोनों वगों के दलए
शीिथ पर जो महत्त्वपूणथ दवश्लेदित है, वह अभ्य दसक
अपर धी शब्ि है। वगथ "क" की दहस्ट्रीशीट को पुदलस
रेगुलेशन के पैर -231 के अन्तगथत 02 विथ ब ि
पुन थदवलोदकत दकये ज ने की प्रदक्रय अपन ए ज ने क
प्र दवध न है, अतः म ० उच्च न्य य लय द्व र दनगथत
आिेश के आलोक में दहस्ट्रीशीट खोले ज ने की
क यथव ही को अदधक न्य यसांगत एवां वस्तुपरक बन ये
ज ने हेतु दनम्नदलदखत दिश -दनिेश दनगथत दकये ज रहे
हैं-
1- 18 विथ से कम आयु के दकसी भी
व्यदक्त की दहस्ट्रीशीट नहीं खोली ज येगी।
2- दहस्ट्रीशीट खोलने के दलए उ०प्र०
पुदलस रेगुलेशन के पैर 228 से 240 तक क गहन
अध्ययन करके उसी के अनुरूप क यथव ही की ज ये।
3- दहस्ट्रीशीट ऐसे व्यदक्तयों की खोली
ज ये दजनके ब रे में यह दवश्व स करने क युदक्तयुक्त
आध र हो दक आितन अपर धी है य हो सकत है।
रूटीन में दहस्ट्रीशीट न खोली ज ये।
1- दहस्ट्रीशीट ऐसे व्यदक्तयों की खोली
ज ये
दजनकी
गहन
दनगर नी
(Intense
Surveillance) की आवश्यकत हो।
ii- जो ऐसे अपर दधयों के िुष्प्रेरक हों
अथव उनक ऐस होन सम्भ दवत हो।
iii- दनजी रांदजश में िजथ अदभयोगों अथव
अन्य असांगत आध रों पर दकसी व्यदक्त की दहस्ट्रीशीट न
खोली ज ये।
iv- उिर प्रिेश दगरोहबांि और सम ज
दवरोधी दक्रय कल प अदधदनयम/उ०प्र० गुण्ड दनयांत्रण
अदधदनयम के अन्तगथत की गयी क यथव दहयों को
दहस्ट्रीशीट खोलने क आध र न बन य ज ये।
v- चूांदक दहस्ट्रीशीट जनपि के पुदलस
अधीक्षक के आिेश से खोली ज ती है, अतः वे पूणथतय
आध रों से सांतुष्ट होने पर ही दहस्ट्रीशीट खोलने क
अनुमोिन करें।
vi- थ न प्रभ री द्व र प्रेदित दहस्ट्रीशीट
क सम्बदन्धत क्षेत्र दधक री एवां अपर पुदलस अधीक्षक
द्व र सघन परीक्षण करने के उपर न्त ही वररष्ठ पुदलस
अधीक्षक/पुदलस अधीक्षक द्व र दहस्ट्रीशीट खोलने
अनुमोदित दकय ज ये।
4- उिर प्रिेश पुदलस रेगुलेशन के पैर
228 में 276 में वदणथत प्र वध नों के अन्तगथत 18 विथ
से अांदधक तथ 21 विथ तक के अपर दधयों की
दहस्ट्रीशीट खोलने से पूवथ वररष्ठ अधीक्षक / पुदलस
अधीक्षक द्व र सूचन थथ पुदलस मह दनरीक्षक,
सी.बी.सी.आई.डी. को इस आशय से प्रेदित की
ज येगी दक उन्हें कोई आपदि हो तो पत्र प्र दप्त के दिन ांक
1 All. Firoj Malik Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
669
15 दिवस के अन्िर वह अपनी दटप्पणी सदहत
सम्बदन्धत दजल मुख्य लयों को भेजेंगे।
5-
पुदलस
मह दनरीक्षक,
सी.बी.सी.आई.डी. द्व र यदि कोई आपदि व्यक्त की
ज ती है, तो जनपि के वररष्ठ पुदलस अधीक्षक/पुदलस
अधीक्षक द्व र प्रकरण क परीक्षण दकय ज येग एवां
यदि अब भी दहस्ट्रीशीट खोलने के दलए उपयुक्त प य
ज त है तो उसकी दहस्ट्रीशीट खोलकर इसकी सूचन
पुदलस मह दनरीक्षक, सी.बी.सी.आई.डी. को प्रेदित की
ज येगी।
6- यदि पत्र की प्र दप्त के 15 दिनों के
अन्िर पुदलस मह दनरीक्षक, सी.बी.सी.आई.डी. द्व र
उक्त प्रकरण में कोई आपदि नहीं की ज ती है तो यह
म न दलय ज येग दक उनको वररष्ठ पुदलस अधीक्षक /
पुदलस अधीक्षक द्व र सांस्तुत की गयी आख्य पर कोई
आपदि नहीं है।
अतः आप सभी को दनिेदशत दकय ज त
है दक उ०प्र० पुदलस रेगुलेशन के उपरोक्त पैर एवां
मुख्य लय स्तर से दनगथत दनिेशों/पररपत्रों क पुनः
गहनत से अध्ययन कर लें एवां जनपि स्तर पर
क यथश ल क आयोजन कर अपने अधीनस्थ र जपदत्रत
अदधक ररयों को दवस्त र से अवगत कर िें और यह भी
सुदनदश्चत करें दक इन दनिेशों क कड ई से अनुप लन
दकय ज ए।

19. 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, cattletheft etc etc, as described in the said subregulation.
20. 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.