# Mohammad Wajir v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 471
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-28
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 14839 of 2025
- **Bench:** Siddharth, Santosh Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohammad-wajir-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53710
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

G.A.

Issue for Consideration
Regulation 228 and 240 does not give an
unbridled, uncanalised power to the police to
use it in such a way which has necessary
consequence of squeezing out the fundamental
freedom of the citizen

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article
226
-
The
Uttar
Pradesh
Police
Regulations-Regulations 228, 231 &
240 - Only one case has been registered
against the petitioner - no any other
case is pending - Regulation 228 and
240
does
not
give
an
unbridled,
uncanalised power to the police - Police
does not possess a licence to enter the
names of whoever they like or dislike in
the
surveillance
register
-
Representation pursuant to a direction
of this Court has very casually been
rejected
by
the
Superintendent
of
Police - Nothing to substantiate that
the petitioner is involved in the nature
of offence envisaged by Regulation 228
(A) - History sheet No.18-A deserves to
be quashed - Petition Allowed.

Held- No sufficient ground to entertain a
reasonable
belief
that
surveillance
was
required in the case of the petitioner. There
exists no evidence to support the act of
opening of the history sheet No.18-A of the
petitioner at Police Station Bhawaniganj,
District Siddharth nagar and, therefore, it
deserves to be quashed. (Para 14) (E-15)

Case Law Cited
Govind Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR
1975 SC, 1378;Malak Singh Vs. State of
Punjab and Haryana, AIR 1981 SC, 760

List of Acts
The Constitution of India, 1950, The
Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations

List of Keywords
No criminal history except one case; Historysheet has been opened on the basis of only
one case; No unbridled, uncanalised power
to the police; Squeezing out the fundamental
freedom

Case Arising From
Writ petition has been filed seeking a writ,
order or direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the order dated 23.06.2025 passed
by Superintendent of Police, Siddharth nagar
by which the petitioner's representation for
closure of History-sheet no.18 A category
has been rejected.

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioners(s) : Om Prakash Singh
Sisodia, Sunil Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A

## Text

8 All. Mohammad Wajir Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
471
evidence to the court is also an additional
factor to be kept in mind by the court.

16. In view of the above, I do not think
that the learned trial Court committed any
legal error by rejecting the application filed
by the revisionist under section 311 Cr.P.C.

17. This revision is, accordingly,
dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 471
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.
THE HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 14839 of 2025

Mohammad Wajir ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Om Prakash Singh Sisodia, Sunil Kumar
Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Issue for Consideration
Regulation 228 and 240 does not give an
unbridled, uncanalised power to the police to
use it in such a way which has necessary
consequence of squeezing out the fundamental
freedom of the citizen

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article
226
-
The
Uttar
Pradesh
Police
Regulations-Regulations 228, 231 &
240 - Only one case has been registered
against the petitioner - no any other
case is pending - Regulation 228 and
240
does
not
give
an
unbridled,
uncanalised power to the police - Police
does not possess a licence to enter the
names of whoever they like or dislike in
the
surveillance
register
-
Representation pursuant to a direction
of this Court has very casually been
rejected
by
the
Superintendent
of
Police - Nothing to substantiate that
the petitioner is involved in the nature
of offence envisaged by Regulation 228
(A) - History sheet No.18-A deserves to
be quashed - Petition Allowed.

Held- No sufficient ground to entertain a
reasonable
belief
that
surveillance
was
required in the case of the petitioner. There
exists no evidence to support the act of
opening of the history sheet No.18-A of the
petitioner at Police Station Bhawaniganj,
District Siddharth nagar and, therefore, it
deserves to be quashed. (Para 14) (E-15)

Case Law Cited
Govind Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR
1975 SC, 1378;Malak Singh Vs. State of
Punjab and Haryana, AIR 1981 SC, 760

List of Acts
The Constitution of India, 1950, The
Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations

List of Keywords
No criminal history except one case; Historysheet has been opened on the basis of only
one case; No unbridled, uncanalised power
to the police; Squeezing out the fundamental
freedom

Case Arising From
Writ petition has been filed seeking a writ,
order or direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the order dated 23.06.2025 passed
by Superintendent of Police, Siddharth nagar
by which the petitioner's representation for
closure of History-sheet no.18 A category
has been rejected.

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioners(s) : Om Prakash Singh
Sisodia, Sunil Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A

(Delivered by Hon'ble Santosh Rai, J.)
472 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

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

2. This writ petition has been filed
seeking a writ, order or direction in the
nature of certiorari quashing the order
dated 23.06.2025 passed by Superintendent
of Police, Siddharthnagar by which the
petitioner's representation for closure of
History-sheet no.18 A category has been
rejected.

3. The facts in brief as contained in the
writ petition are that the petitioner is a
reputed person and doing his private work
having no criminal history except one case
mentioned as Case Crime No.282 of 2016,
under Section 3/5/7 Cow Slaughter Act.
Earlier the petitioner approached this Court
by means of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
No.8156 of 2024. The same has been
disposed of by order dated 17.03.2025 with
direction that petitioner shall file an
appropriate
application
before
Superintendent of Police, Siddharthnagar
and same shall be considered and decided
by
Superintendent
of
Police,
Siddharthnagar. In compliance of order
dated 17.03.2025 the petitioner approached
respondent no.3 Superintendent of Police,
Siddharthnagar. By order dated 23.06.2025
respondent
no.3
has
rejected
the
representation of the petitioner. Hence this
writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitoner Mohammad
Wajir is not habitual offender. Only one
case, bearing Case Crime No.282 of 2016,
under Section 3/5/7 Cow Slaughter Act was
registered against him. Investigation of this
case has already been concluded and
chargesheet has been filed before the court.
The applicant has already been obtained
bail that in the above case. No any F.I.R. or
N.C.R. or complaint has been registered
against the petitioner except the above case.
The
concerned
police
authority
has
wrongly opened the history-sheet against
the petitioner without cogent and reliable
material and in volition of para 228, 229,
231, 233 and other relevant rules of the
Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations. The
purpose of police regulation to open the
history-sheet is to give special power in the
hands of the police to keep vigilance on the
activity of the history-sheeter who may be
involved in criminal activities. It is true that
history-sheet may be opened and vigilance
surveillance may be conducted against the
accused person according to law but only
one case has been registered in the year
2016 against the petitioner and no other
criminal case or complaint has been
registered against the petitioner before the
police station or the court concerned.
History-sheet has been opened by the
police authority on the basis of only one
incident/case, which has been registered 8
years back. He further submitted that
history-sheet being opened as History Sheet
no.18A category which is completely
illegal and liable to be quashed. He further
prayed that issue writ order or direction in
the nature of certiorari to quash the order
dated 23.06.2025 passed by Superintendent
of Police, Siddharthnagar. Further prayer is
that order or direction may be issued in the
nature of mandamus commanding to the
respondents not to take any coercive
measure on the basis of History Sheet
No.18A category.

5. Learned A.G.A. for opposite parties
vehemently opposed the above argument
and submitted that police authority has
power under the Uttar Pradesh Police
Regulations to open the history-sheet
against the habitual offender or the suspects
8 All. Mohammad Wajir Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
473
on the basis of information collected
through the concerned police station on the
basis of relevant material. Concerned
police station of police rightly or legally
opened the History-sheet no.18A category
against the petitioner. He further admitted
that no any cognizable offence or non
cognizable offence or complaint has been
registered against the petitioner except
Case Crime No.282 of 2016, under Section
3/5/7
Cow
Slaughter
Act,
P.S.
Dumariyaganj, District Siddharthnagar.

6. In the light of the above observation
made by learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned A.G.A. we thoroughly perused
the relevant record. It is admitted fact that
'only' one case Case Crime No.282 of
2016, under Section 3/5/7 Cow Slaughter
Act has been registered against the
petitioner and no any other case is pending
or registered against the accused-petitioner.
It has been submitted before the Court that
trial in Case Crime No.282 of 2016, under
Section 3/5/7 Cow Slaughter Act is
pending before the court concerned. The
aforesaid incident occurred on 21.04.2016
and the first information report was
registered against five accused persons
namely Kale son of Heera, Shamshulla son
of Shohrat, Wajir son of Basheer, Arman
and Gajju. On the basis of very same crime
number, History-sheet no.18A category
dated 07.02.2024 was approved against
only one accused petitioner Mohammad
Wajir only by Superintendent of Police,
Siddharthnagar. Prior to it, the petitioner
Mohammad Wajir has filed Criminal Misc.
Writ Petition No.8156 of 2024 before this
Court. Coordinate Bench of this Court has
passed an order on 17.03.2025. Relevant
para-5 is quoted below:-

"5. Considering the facts and
circumstances, no useful purpose would be
served in keeping the writ petition pending.
With the consent of the parties, the writ
petition is disposed of finally with the
direction that the petitioner shall file an
appropriate application before respondent
no.
3
(Superintendent
of
Police,
Siddharthnagar) within ten days from
today, and the Superintendent of Police,
Siddharthnagar, shall consider and decide
the said application strictly in accordance
with law, preferably within three months
from the date of its filing. It is made clear
that this Court has not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the case."

7. In compliance of the order of the
co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated
17.03.2025, the Superintendent of Police,
Siddharthnagar
has
rejected
the
representation
of
the
petitioner
on
23.06.2025 on the basis of the report of the
Circle Officer, S.H.O., police station
Bhawaniganj, District Siddharthnagar by
mentioning the provision of Uttar Pradesh
Police Regulations particularly paras 228
and
240
of
Uttar
Pradesh
Police
Regulations.

8. Paras 228, 231 and 240 of Uttar
Pradesh Police Regulations reads as under:-

" 228. History sheets, Part V of
the village Crime Note Book- 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 like 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.
474 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2...

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
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."

"231. Subjects of history sheets
of A-Class- The subjects of historysheets of
class A will unless they are 'starred' remain
under
surveillance
for
a
least
two
consecutive years 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 which will be discontinued
only if during that period no complaints
have been recorded against him."

240. History sheets of both
classes when to be opened? -History-sheets
of both classes may be opened (1) on
suspicion or (2) on conviction or 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-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 officerin-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."
8 All. Mohammad Wajir Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
475

9. The Apex Court in the case of
Govind Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR
1975 SC, 1378 observed that a person
subjected to surveillance, the object and
limitation of such surveillance depends
upon character and antecedents of the
person concerned. The Police Regulation
has force of law and, therefore, it can not
be said to be infringement of fundamental
right. Nevertheless Article 21 of the
Constitution is a right of an individual to be
free from restriction or encroachment
directly imposed or indirectly approached
by calculated measures.

10. Thus, we have to examine case on
the basis of facts and circumstances. We
are of the considered view that Regulation
228 and 240 does not give an unbridled,
uncanalised power to the police to use it in
such
a
way
which
has
necessary
consequence
of
squeezing
out
the
fundamental freedom of the citizen. A note
of caution was given in the case of Malak
Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Haryana,
AIR 1981 SC, 760. Thus evidently the
police does not possess a licence to enter
the names of whoever they like or dislike in
the surveillance register. Ordinarily the
names of persons with previous criminal
record alone are entered in the surveillance
register.
They
must
be
proclaimed
offenders, previous convicts, or persons
who have already been placed on security
for good behaviour. In addition, names of
persons who are reasonably believed to be
habitual offenders or receivers of stolen
property whether they have been convicted
or not, can be categorized and entered in
the surveillance register under the Police
Regulation.

11. We have also noticed that the
representation pursuant to a direction of
this Court has very casually been rejected
by
the
Superintendent
of
Police,
Siddharthnagar stating therein that the
provisions in Police Regulation 228 and
240 authorises police to open history-sheet.
However, we have noticed that there is
nothing to substantiate that the petitioner is
involved in the nature of offence envisaged
by
Regulation
228
(A)
of
Police
Regulation, there is not even a suspicion by
any
of
the
authorities.
Admittedly,
petitioner has no criminal antecedent and,
therefore, rejection of the representation as
well as opening of the history-sheet without
even
looking
into
requirement
of
Regulation 228 and 240 of the U.P. Police
Regulation, the order dated 23.06.2025 can
not be left to stand.

12. A close perusal of the order of the
Superintendent of Police, Siddharthnagar ,
it
transpires
that
while
rejecting
representation
of
the
petitioner
and
justifying opening of the history-sheet, he
has referred Police Regulation 228 (1) as
well as Police Regulation 240 which are
enabling provisions for opening history
sheet of a person. We are conscious of the
Police Regulations but the said provisions
provide that history sheet can be opened
only against such persons who are dacoits,
burglars, cattle thieves, railway goods
wagon thieves and abettors of such offence
as well as certain other offences classified
in Police Regulation 228. Regulation 240
enables the Police to open a history sheet
also on the basis of suspicion or on
conviction or acquittal.

13.
In
the
instant
case
the
Superintendent of Police, Siddharthnagar
opened History-sheet no.18A category on
the basis of sole case being Crime No.282
of
2016,
under
Section
3/5/7
Cow
Slaughter Act. Thus, the basis of opening
the history-sheet appears to be cattle theft
476 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
as provided under para 228 of the Uttar
Pradesh Police Regulations. Above matter
is related to Cow Slaughter Act. Since only
one case has been registered against the
petitioner before 8 years of the incident in
the year 2016, it cannot be said that the
petitioner is habitual offender of cattle theft
as mentioned in Caw Slaughter Act. Para
240 of Uttar Pradesh Police Regulation
provides opening of history-sheet on the
basis of 'suspicion' and on the basis of
conviction or acquittal, but it requires same
cogent and reliable material to frame basis
of reliable and reasonable suspicion.

14. We are satisfied that there was no
sufficient ground to entertain a reasonable
belief that surveillance was required in the
case of the petitioner. There exists no
evidence to support the act of opening of
the history sheet No.18-A of the petitioner
at Police Station Bhawaniganj, District
Siddharthnagar and, therefore, it deserves
to be quashed.

15. In the result, the writ petition, is
allowed. The order dated 23.06.2025
passed by respondent no.3, Superintendent
of Police, Siddharthnagar is quashed. The
respondents are directed to close the
present history sheet No. 18-A of the
petitioner and not to keep surveillance on
the petitioner, in pursuance of the said
history-sheet.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 476
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 06.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 468 of 2011
&
First Appeal From Order No. 467 of 2011
The Chief Engineer Irrigation Deptt. Lko. &
Anr. ...Appellant
Versus
Ms. Tabassum ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
C.S.C.

Counsel for the Respondent:
Rajesh Trivedi, Shakeel Ahmad Ansari

Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to whether a married daughter,
being a legal heir of deceased victims in a motor
accident claim, can be denied compensation
beyond statutory no-fault liability u/s 140 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on the ground that she
is not a dependent, or whether she remains
entitled to full and just compensation u/s 166 of
Act as legal representative of deceased.

Headnotes
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - ss. 140, 166 -
On
24.04.2009,
Aftab
Husain,
accompanied by his son, was travelling on
motorcycle towards the residence of
relative
when,
near
Bahad
Gram
Khushalganj,
Mohaan
Road,
a
truck
bearing being driven in rash and negligent
manner, collided with their motorcycle,
resulting in grievous injuries to both - They
were taken to Trauma Centre, where Aftab
Husain succumbed to his injuries on same
day, while his son expired during treatment
- Claimant-respondent, daughter of Aftab
Husain and sister of deceased, instituted
two separate claim petitions before Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal,
which
were
contested by State-appellants, who denied
accident
and
alleged
contributory
negligence by deceased - After appreciating
evidence,
Tribunal
held
that
accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving
of
offending
truck
and
awarded
compensation of ₹2,13,200/- for death of
Aftab Husain and ₹1,60,400/- for death of
his son, which awards were challenged by
State in instant appeals.
Held: Court holds that since claimant's husband
was employed abroad and she resided with her