- (1.) CONTINUITY of his tory-sheet opened against the petitioner as back as on 17-2-1988 and consequential surveillance and domicilliary visits by the police at his residence, is the subject-mat ter of challenge in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) WE have heard Mr. Nasiruzzaman, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mahendra Pratap, learned A.G.A. Since counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged between the parties with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the present petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage itself. The petitioner has challenged the history-sheet which has been opened against him in police station Mundha Pan-dey district Moradabad on 17-2-1988, on the ground that he is a peace loving citizen and employed as a class IV employee in Ucha Prathmik Vidhyalay Dhamaura, Rampur. In the year 1987 his uncle Mohd. Yunus had contested the election of village Pradhan and the petitioner opposed him and on account of this election rivalry, his uncle Mohd. Yunus in connivance with the police implicated the petitioner in case crime Nos. 56/86 under Section 394, IPC, PS. Tandan, district Rampur. Sub sequently, an identification parade was held in which none of the identifying wit nesses could identify the petitioner with the result a report under Section 169, Cr PC was submitted against him. Since then the petitioner has not been called in any other case. At the behest of Mohd. Yunus, the Superintendent of Police, Rampur sent a letter to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Moradabad for opening of his tory- sheet against the petitioner. In the year 1997 when the police visited petitioner's place at short intervals and demanded his photographs etc., then on enquiry by the petitioner, it was found that history-sheet No. 30-A has been opened in Police Station Mundha Pandey against him on 17-2-1988.
(3.) IN the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, it has been averred that there is no order of the Senior Superintendent of Police that surveillance of history- sheet should continue. In the counter-affidavit filed by Sub-Inspector-Beer Pal Singh, Police Sta tion Mundha Pandey, Moradabad on be half of the respondents, it has been ad mitted that except one case mentioned above, the petitioner has not been chal-laned in any other case and according to paragraph 228 of U.P. Police Regulation, on account of suspicion, the person dis charged under Section 169, Cr PC are being kept under surveillance of the police oflocal police station. In the said case the place of occurrence was a place situated in district Rampur and the Superintendent of Police, Rampur had recommended to the S.S.P., Moradabad for keeping watch and surveillance on the petitioner by open ing a history-sheet against the petitioner and since then the petitioner has been kept in periodically watch and surveillance by the police of P.S. Mundha Pandey, district Moradabad, the purpose of which as to control over the offences as mentioned in Paragraph 228 of the Regulation. It is fur ther averred that Paragraph 240 of the U.P. Police Regulation confers a duty on the police to keep watch and surveillance on the persons, even in case of suspicion by opening history-sheet against him. It is wrong to suggest that the police of P.S. Mundha Pandey has been harassing the petitioner.;