Case at a Glance
The Superintendent of Police, Udaipur opened a history-sheet against a man on 1 April 2025, placing him under police surveillance. Twelve FIRs had been registered against him since 1996, but he had been convicted only once, about thirty years ago; the rest ended in acquittals, compromises or negative final reports, and two were pending. The Rajasthan High Court held that conviction is not a prerequisite for a history-sheet, but the number of cases “is not decisive by itself” and the authority must weigh their nature, recency and outcome. It remitted the matter to the SP for a reasoned fresh decision.
Naresh Prajapat approached the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash a history-sheet opened against him by an order dated 1 April 2025 and to have his name removed from the surveillance register. He argued that the authorities had acted mechanically under the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965, counting the cases against him without considering their outcomes or recording cogent reasons, and pointed out that earlier police documents referred to eight pending cases and later ones to ten. He relied on the High Court’s decision in Kaptan Singh v. State of Rajasthan.
The State said the SP, Udaipur had considered his antecedents and record: twelve cases had been registered between 1996 and 2025, two were pending, the latest was of 2025, and a history-sheet does not depend only on convictions. It relied on Rules 4.4 and 4.9 of the Rules of 1965 and on Kailash v. State of Rajasthan. The Court tabulated the twelve FIRs: one conviction (1996, under Section 283 IPC), two cases closed by compromise, three acquittals, four negative final reports and two cases still under trial.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can the police open and continue a history-sheet and surveillance entry against a person merely on the number of FIRs registered against him, without weighing their outcomes and recency?
Reasonable Grounds, Not a Head-Count of FIRs
Justice Sunil Beniwal examined Rule 4.4 (Surveillance Register No. 8) — including Rule 4.4(3)(b), which covers persons reasonably believed to be habitual offenders whether or not convicted — and Rule 4.9 on opening history-sheets. He reviewed the High Court’s earlier decisions: Kailash v. State of Rajasthan (surveillance power exists but must be exercised within the Rules on relevant material); Sanjay v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (which set out numerical criteria for continuance that do not replace lawful discretion); Kaptan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (an order based only on registration of cases, without reasons for the authority’s satisfaction, offends Articles 14 and 21); and Gul Mohammad Khan v. State of Rajasthan (the three-conviction test of the Rajasthan Habitual Offenders Act, 1953 cannot be imported into Rule 4.4(3)(b), and continuance must be reconsidered in light of later acquittals and final reports), which drew on Dhanji Ram Sharma v. Superintendent of Police, North District, Delhi Police, (1966) 03 SC CK 0026, AIR 1966 SC 1766.
Distilling these, the Court held that conviction is not a prerequisite for opening a history-sheet, but the authority needs reasonable grounds, not mere suspicion, and case numbers cannot substitute for reasoned discretion; the nature, recency and outcome of the cases, any later criminal involvement and the material actually considered must all be assessed. Here the only conviction was about thirty years old with none since, and the record showed four negative final reports, three acquittals, two compromises and two pending trials. The number of cases was not decisive by itself, and continuance of the history-sheet had to be reconsidered in light of these developments.
What the Court Actually Held
- Conviction is not indispensable for opening a history-sheet under Rule 4.4(3)(b) of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965, but the belief that a person is a habitual offender must rest on reasonable grounds.
- The number of FIRs is not decisive; the authority must weigh the nature, recency and outcome of the cases and later developments such as acquittals and negative final reports.
- The matter was remitted to the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur to reconsider continuance of the history-sheet and surveillance entry and pass a reasoned order after due application of mind.
- The petitioner may file a representation with documents within two weeks, to be decided preferably within eight weeks; the Court expressed no view on the merits of the underlying cases.
Why This Judgment Matters
- A history-sheet brings continuing police surveillance and social stigma; the ruling insists that it be based on a reasoned assessment rather than a count of FIRs.
- It recognises that acquittals, compromises and closure reports must be factored in, so that a person is not branded by cases that never resulted in conviction.
- It consolidates the Rajasthan High Court’s case law on history-sheets and links the issue to Articles 14 and 21.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Citizens
- If a history-sheet is opened against you, ask for the order and the list of cases relied on; check whether acquittals, compromises and closure reports were considered.
- You can file a representation before the Superintendent of Police with judgments of acquittal and final reports, and approach the High Court if it is not considered.
- Old convictions with no later conviction carry less weight in deciding whether surveillance should continue.
For Counsel
- Challenge history-sheet orders that rest only on the number of FIRs, citing Kaptan Singh v. State of Rajasthan and this decision.
- Build a tabulated record of each FIR’s outcome; the Court relied heavily on such a table.
- Note that Gul Mohammad Khan v. State of Rajasthan rejects importing the Habitual Offenders Act’s three-conviction test, so the argument must be about reasonable grounds, not a conviction count.
Key Takeaways
- No conviction is required for a history-sheet, but reasonable grounds are.
- FIR numbers alone cannot justify surveillance; outcomes and recency matter.
- Later acquittals and negative final reports must be considered when deciding continuance.
- SP, Udaipur to decide afresh by a reasoned order, preferably within eight weeks of the representation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a history-sheet?
It is a police record opened under the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 for persons believed to be habitual offenders, which places them under surveillance. Under Rule 4.4(3)(b), it can be opened even without a conviction, but only on reasonable grounds.
Can the police keep a history-sheet open because many FIRs were filed?
Not on numbers alone. The Rajasthan High Court held that the authority must consider the nature, recency and outcome of the cases, including acquittals, compromises and negative final reports.
Did the High Court close the history-sheet?
No. It remitted the matter to the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur to reconsider continuance and pass a reasoned order on the petitioner’s representation, preferably within eight weeks.
Conclusion
The order is a measured check on police surveillance: it accepts that a history-sheet may be opened without a conviction, but insists that the decision reflect the full record, not a bare count of FIRs. For a man whose only conviction is three decades old and whose other cases largely ended in his favour, that means a fresh look by the SP.
Practical takeaway: Persons placed under surveillance on the strength of multiple FIRs should document the outcome of each case and seek reconsideration; authorities must give reasons that engage with acquittals, compromises and closure reports.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com