S.K. Jain, J. - (1.) ON the order dated 8.8.1998, passed by Sri Arvind Kumar Jain, D.I.G. Varanasi, the history sheet of the Petitioner was opened vide history sheet No. 12 -A/98 at P.S. Luxxa, district Varanasi as the Petitioner is a permanent resident of the said police station.
(2.) FEELING aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner has filed this petition praying for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the history sheet against him and also for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent Nos. 1. 3 and 4 not to treat the Petitioner as history -sheerer of any class and to cancel his name from the list of history sheet in the aforesaid police station. It is admitted that history sheet No. 12A/98 has been opened at Police Station Luxxa against the Petitioner vide D.I.G., Varanasi's order dated 8.8.1998. The facts, briefly stated, are that the Petitioner along with two others was involved in an offence Under Section 307, I.P.C. in Case Crime No. 268 of 1998, police station Bhelupur, district Varanasi. The Petitioner has been granted bail in the aforesaid case and the bail order in the said case Annexure -0 is on the record. The Petitioner has alleged that the police station Bhelupur and Luxxa in collusion with the informant of the Case Crime No. 268 of 1998 are watching the activities of the Petitioner keeping him under surveillance, which amounts to encroachment upon the privacy of the Petitioner and also the Police personnel's of the said Police Stations used to knock on the door of the Petitioner's house during midnight. It is further alleged that the Petitioner has no criminal history and the order dated 8.8.1998 passed by the D.I.G., Varanasi, for opening the history sheet of the Petitioner is without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed. The Petitioner has alleged that keeping him under surveillance and knocking on the door of Petitioner's house during the odd hours of night and forcing him to go to the police station and asking him to seek Police permission before he moves anywhere else, tantamount to encroachment upon the privacy of the Petitioner and violates/infringes his Fundamental right of the personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and freedom of movement guaranteed by Article 19(1)(d). According to the Petitioner, since he is involved in a solitary criminal case, he cannot be termed as habitual and professional criminal and therefore, has prayed that the Respondents be directed to close the history sheet and not to keep surveillance on him.
(3.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.;