# Satpal Singh Chhabra v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 9 ILRA 1
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-02-19
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 32514 of 2018
- **Bench:** Bala Krishna Narayana, Prakash Padia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satpal-singh-chhabra-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45897
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - U.P. Police Regulations,
1861- Chapter XX Rule 231 - Regulation 228
- surveillance of person in History Sheet of
Class-A - The surveillance in respect of a
person whose history sheet of Class-A has
been opened cannot be continued beyond
two consecutive years 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 circumstances during said two
consecutive years. No such eventuality has
happened or occurred in the instant case of
the
petitioner
during
the
said
two
consecutive years, therefore history sheet
ought to have been closed. (para 12, 14)
Writ Petition Allowed. (E-10)

## Text

9 All. Satpal Singh Chhabra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1
(2020)09ILR A1
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 32514 of 2018

Satpal Singh Chhabra ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Swetasha Agarwal

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law - U.P. Police Regulations,
1861- Chapter XX Rule 231 - Regulation 228
- surveillance of person in History Sheet of
Class-A - The surveillance in respect of a
person whose history sheet of Class-A has
been opened cannot be continued beyond
two consecutive years 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 circumstances during said two
consecutive years. No such eventuality has
happened or occurred in the instant case of
the
petitioner
during
the
said
two
consecutive years, therefore history sheet
ought to have been closed. (para 12, 14)
Writ Petition Allowed. (E-10)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and Smt. Manju Thakur, learned
AGA for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has preferred the
present writ petition inter-alia with the
prayer to quash the impugned order dated
5.7.2018 passed by the S.S.P., Saharanpur
rejecting the petitioner's representation for
closure of history-sheet No.30-A opened
against the petitioner at Police Station
Kutubsher,
District
Saharanpur
since
4.4.2006.

3. The facts in brief as contained in
the writ petition are that the petitioner is a
reputed man of his town and doing the
business and running a daily newspaper in
the name of "Dainik Badri Vishal". It is
stated in the writ petition that the petitioner
was falsely implicated in 9 cases disclosed
in the history-sheet. It is further stated that
it is apparent that a series of criminal cases
relating to disputed properties for which
civil suites were also filed before the court
of
competent
jurisdiction
at
district
Saharanpur, were deliberately instituted
against the petitioner and are product of
malice. From perusal of the history-sheet,
which is appended in the writ petition it is
clear that on the basis of nine criminal
cases relating to the offences against
property, history-sheet in question came
into existence for the petitioner in the year
2006. The details of the aforesaid nine
cases were mentioned in paragraph 9 of the
writ petition. From perusal of the same, it is
clear that in some of the cases either final
report
has
been
submitted
or
the
proceedings
were
quashed
by
the
competent authority. It is further stated in
paragraph 10 of the writ petition that apart
from the nine cases as mentioned in the
history-sheet eight other cases were also
registered against the petitioner with the
reference and mention in paragraph 10 of
the writ petition. It is further stated in the
writ petition that in as many as four cases
reference of which has been made by the
petitioner in the petition, the petitioner has
no connection.
2 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

4. It is further argued by learned
counsel for the petitioner that after the year
2007, no criminal case whatsoever has been
registered against him nor he has been
involved in any case pertaining to any civil
dispute or land dispute or anything else but
no orders were passed by the authorities for
closure of the history-sheet in question. In
this
reasons
a
comprehensive
representation was made by the petitioner
before the State Government on 23.8.2016,
copy of which is appended as annexure 20
to the writ petition. Since no action was
taken on the same, the petitioner earlier
preferred a writ petition before this Court
being
Criminal
Misc.
Writ
Petition
No.15785 of 2017 (Satpal Singh Chhabra
Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others). The
aforesaid writ petition was finally decided
by another Coordinate Bench of this Court
vide its judgement and order dated
20.4.2018 directing the petitioner to prefer
a representation before the concerned S.S.P
/ S.P. along with a self attested copy of the
writ petition within two weeks. The
authority concerned was directed to decide
the same and pass appropriate orders within
two months. The order passed on 20.4.2018
is reproduced hereinbelow :-

"Heard Ms. Swetashwa Agarwal,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Ashish Pandey, learned AGA for the State
and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as
material brought on record.

The present writ petition has been
filed with the prayer to quash the history
sheet
No.
30-A
dated
04.04.2006,
command the respondent concerned not to
give effect to history sheet No. 30-A dated
04.04.2006 in Police Station Kutubsher,
Saharanpur.

Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that he made a representation before
the S.S.P., Saharanpur, as it appears from the
representation dated 23.08.2016 and copy of
the same has been annexed on page No. 134.

We have heard the learned
counsel for the petitioner and also learned
A.G.A.

It would appear from the record
that the police has opened history sheet of
the petitioner on the basis of nine cases
registered against him mentioned in para
no. 6 in which in some of them, the
petitioner has been acquitted.

The argument of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the history
sheet of Class A can be opened when it has
been established on the basis of 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
become dangerous and confirmed criminal
and is unlikely to reform. The next
contention is that the case of the petitioner
no. 1 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 Vs. State of U.P. 1992 Supp.
(2) SCC 84(1) and suggested that the
matter should be relegated to authority
concerned for deciding whether the history
sheet of petitioner 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 concerned S.S.P /
S.P. along with a self attested copy of the
writ petition within two weeks from today,
the authority concerned shall consider it
according to law and pass appropriate order
within two months.
9 All. Satpal Singh Chhabra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
3

The petition stands disposed of. "

5. Pursuant to the same a detailed
representation
was
submitted
by
the
petitioner before the respondent no.1. The
aforesaid representation was rejected by the
respondent no.2 vide its order dated
5.7.2018, copy of which is appended as
annexure 1 to the writ petition.

6. It is argued by learned counsel for
the petitioner that the history-sheet can
only be opened against the person, who is
habitual offender or addicted to commit
crimes
specified
under
the
Police
Regulation and in the present case Historysheet was opened against the petitioner
although there was no material before the
authority for such belief. It is further argued
that history-sheet of class-A as in the
present case 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 dacoit and mere
suspects can not be starred until established
that one has become dangerous and
confirmed criminal and is unlikely to
reform.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner
relied upon Regulation 228 of U.P. Police
Regulation. It is further argued that since
2007, there is no criminal case lodged
against the petitioner and he was not found
involved in any criminal activities under
Chapter XX Rule 231 of U.P. Police
Regulations, the history-sheet ought to
have been closed after two consecutive
years but only in order to harass the
petitioner the authorities are not closing the
history-sheet of the petitioner and are
harassing the petitioner in the name of
surveillance. It is further argued that the
history-sheet of the petitioner is a Class-A
and not starred. The relevant provisions
regarding maintenance of history-sheet of
Class-A is contained in Chapter XX Rule
231 of the U.P. Police Regulations, which
is reproduced hereinbelow :-

"(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."

8. In this view of the matter, it is
argued that the history-sheet of a Class-A
could only be permitted to continue for two
conclusive years subject to his not having
been in jail for any part of the said two
years. The history-sheet beyond two years
cannot continue except by a special order
4 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
or unless found to have been convicted in
any congnizable offence and in jail or
suspected for any offence or absented in
suspicious circumstances during said two
consecutive years. It is argued that the
petitioner does not fall into any of the
parameters mentioned in paragraph 231 of
the Police Regulations as such history-sheet
needs to be closed in the interest of justice.
It is further argued that though all this
grounds were duly taken by the petitioner
while filing the representation pursuant to
the orders passed by this Court but none of
them was taken into consideration by the
respondent no.2 while rejecting the same.

9. The writ petition has been
contested on behalf of the State by filing
counter affidavit.

10. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

11. It is not disputed that the history
sheet of the petitioner was of Class-A and
was not ''starred'. The relevant provision
regarding maintenance of history sheet of
Class-A is contained in Chapter XX Rule
231 of the U.P. Police Regulations which is
reproduced above.

12. 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
circumstances during said two consecutive
years.

13. In this way, history sheet could be
continued for two years beyond 2006 and
thereafter since no case was registered
against the petitioner in the next two
consecutive years and he had never been in
jail or convicted of any cognizable offence
during two years after 2006, the history
sheet could not be continued beyond that
period unless Superintendent decided so,
for special reasons to be recorded in the
inspection book of the police station.

14. The intention of the Regulation 231
is not that history sheet should remain open
against anyone for all time to come. Once the
person maintains good conduct and he is not
convicted in any cognizable offence or has
been in jail during that period and also he was
not suspected of any offence or absented
himself in suspicious circumstances for the
said two consecutive years, his surveillance is
to be dis-continued except under orders of
Superintendent on the basis of reason
recorded at police station during inspection.
No such eventuality has happened or
occurred in the case of the petitioner during
the said two consecutive years, therefore,
history sheet ought to have been closed.
Continuance of history sheet beyond the
period as indicated above is wrong and,
therefore, petitioner deserves to the relief
prayed for.

15. Although all these facts were duly
mentioned by the petitioner while making
the representation pursuant to the order
passed by this Court dated 20.4.2018 but
non of them was taken into consideration in
legal manner whatsoever by the respondent
no.2 while rejecting the same vide its order
dated 5.7.2020, which is under challenge in
the present writ petition.

16. In view of the same, we are of the
opinion that the order dated 5.7.2018
9 All. Nuzhat Perween Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
5
passed by the respondent no.2/S.S.P.,
Saharanpur, copy of which is appended as
annexure 1 to the writ petition is liable to
be quashed and the same is hereby
quashed.

17. The writ petition is, therefore,
allowed.

18.
 A
writ
of
mandamus
is
accordingly issued directing the Senior
Superintendent
of Police,
Saharanpur/
respondent no.2 to discontinue history
sheet no. 30-A of the petitioner at P.S.
Kutubsher, District Saharanpur.

19. No order as to costs.
----------
(2020)09ILR A5
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.09.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE GOVIND MATHUR, C.J.
THE HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 264 of 2020

Nuzhat Perween ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
In Person, Sri Dileep Kumar, Sri Manish
Singh, Sri Manoj Kumar, Sri N.I. Jafri

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Manish Goyal, Sri Patanjali Mishra,
Sri Sushil Kumar Mishra

A. Constitution of India-Article 21- Right
to Personal Liberty - Under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India along with the right to life,
the right to personal liberty is a precious
fundamental right. This precious fundamental
right must always be protected - The strong
and valuable fabric of our nation is well
designed with support of fundamental rights
given in Part-III of the Constitution - These
rights are golden thread in the fabric, which is
further illuminated by extending protection of
life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India - True it is, the right so
given under Article 21 is not absolute but no
one can be deprived of his or her personal
liberty
except
on
such
grounds
and
in
accordance
with
such
procedure
as
are
established by law. (Para 29)

B. Civil Law - National Security Act, 1980 -
Preventive Detention - Nature - Preventive
detention is an exceptional mode to curtail
liberty and freedom of a person in exceptionally
rare circumstances. (Para 29)

C. Civil Law - National Security Act, 1980 -
Section 3(2)-Preventive Detention- Subjective
Satisfaction of Authority - Scope of Judicial
Review - Interference by the Court - It is not
open for the courts to substitute their opinion by
interfering with 'subjective satisfaction of the
detaining authority' - However, it does not
mean that the court cannot look into the
material on which detention is based - While
assessing
'subjective
satisfaction
of
the
detaining authority' the Court examining a
petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus has to
look into the record to examine whether the
subjective satisfaction is acceptable to a
reasonable wisdom and that satisfies rationality
of normal thinking and analyzing process. (Para
36)

D. Interpretation of Statute - Subjective
Satisfaction - Meaning - Expression 'subjective
satisfaction'
means
the
satisfaction
of
a
reasonable man that can be arrived at on the
basis of some material which satisfies a rational
man - It does not refer to whim or caprice of
the authority concerned. (Para 36)

E. Civil Law - National Security Act, 1980 -
Preventive Detention - KR Das Test for
Subjective Satisfaction - No proceedings for
detention were initiated for about good two
months from the day the detenue addressed the
students - It is only after passing of the bail
order, the authorities initiated the process of
detention under the National Security Act, 1980