- (1.) This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to close down/ discontinue the history sheet no. 35-A dated 17.8.2001 opened against the petitioner, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure no. 2. The second prayer made by the petitioner is for quashing the order dated 24.6.2012 passed by the respondent no. 2 (Annexure no. 5), whereby the respondent no. 2 has dismissed the representation filed by the petitioner for closing his history-sheet. Earlier, the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 9651 of 2004, which was disposed of vide order dated 11.4.2012 of this court directing the respondent no. 2 to decide the petitioner's representation with regard to closing of history sheet in accordance with law. The respondent no. 2 vide impugned order dated 24.6.2012 dismissed the representation of the petitioner.
(2.) We have heard Sri Kartikey Saran, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA representing all the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the legality and correctness of the order impugned by submitting that although the petitioner is a law abiding citizen yet due to political reasons, the S.H.O., P.S. Moolganj, District Kanpur Nagar, sent a report on 29.7.2001 seeking permission to open his history sheet and surveillance. Consequently the history sheet no. 35-A was opened at P.S. Moolganj, District Kanpur Nagar, which was approved by the respondent no. 2 on 17.8.2001 and the surveillance of the petitioner got started. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the history sheet should be opened against a professional criminal and there must be some basis or material before the police authorities for opening the history sheet. Moreover, Regulation 231 of the Police Regulations provides that history sheet of Class "A" shall continue for two consecutive years only and thereafter surveillance will be discontinued unless some special reason is recorded by the Superintendent of Police.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has next argued that in the petitioner's case the respondent no. 2 has not recorded any special reason for keeping surveillance of the petitioner continued. The respondent no. 2 vide order dated 24.6.2012 has illegally rejected the petitioner's representation by holding that in the ends of justice and public interest it is necessary to continue the history sheet of the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter moved a review application on 5.7.2012, the review application was not decided by the respondent no. 2. However, the respondent no. 2 sent a letter on 17.7.2012 to the respondent no. 3 whereby he directed the respondent no. 3/ S.H.O., P.S. Moolganj, Kanpur Nagar, to stop surveillance of the petitioner. No order was passed with regard to the closing of history sheet no. 35-A of the petitioner. Advancing his arguments further, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that all the criminal cases shown in the history sheet against the petitioner are very old pertaining to the years 1980, 1982, 1983, 1985, 1986 and 1987. More so all these cases have been ended in acquittal and no criminal case has been lodged against the petitioner since last several years. Therefore, continuance of the history sheet against the petitioner is a direct infringement on his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India because the police is illegally harassing the petitioner due to continuance of the history sheet against him. Per contra the submissions made by learned AGA are that there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the order impugned and keeping in view the gravity and serious nature of the criminal cases against the petitioner and also the likelihood of petitioner repeating criminal antecedents, the history-sheet cannot be discontinued or closed. The surveillance against the petitioner has already been closed down and as such the present writ petition has become infructuous and is liable to be dismissed. We have very carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings exchanged between them.;