P.K.LOHRA,J. - (1.) Petitioner Kailash, a seeker of justice, in the instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has prayed for besetting impugned order (No.261-265) dated 20th of February 2016, passed by Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur Rural, Jodhpur, as well as order dated 28th of April 2016 to the extent it has shown petitioner as history-sheeter.
(2.) The facts, apposite for the purpose of this petition, as depicted by the petitioner, are that he is a resident of Shergarh and by occupation an agriculturist. In the year 2010, he was elected as Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Bhateliya Purohitan and was succeeded by his father as Sarpanch in the year 2013 and thereafter in the year 2015 his wife was elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. Projecting his social profile as law abiding citizen, petitioner has pleaded in the petition that he was never involved in any anti social activities but for some criminal cases which were falsely foisted against him out of political vengeance and vendetta. While referring to the criminal cases, registered against him, petitioner has submitted in the petition that in almost 15-16 cases he has either been acquitted or discharged by a competent criminal Court.
(3.) In the petition, essentially, for ventilating his grievances against impugned action, petitioner has referred to Rajasthan Police Rules 1965 (for short, 'Rules of 1965') and Rajasthan Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 2006 (for short, 'Act of 2006'). Assailing the impugned action of the respondents for entering his name in surveillance register No.8 and preparation of history-sheet/opening of history-sheet qua him, it is pleaded with full emphasis by the petitioner that said entry and action is dehors the provisions of Rule 4.4, 4.08 and 4.9 of the Rules of 1965. Positive assertion of the petitioner is that none of the impugned actions of the respondents are satisfying the requirements envisaged under the aforesaid Rules of 1965. An affirmative attempt is also made by the petitioner to assert that pursuant to FIR No.19 of 2016 a false case is foisted against him for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 448, 120-B IPC. It is categorically averred by the petitioner that although his name did not figure in the FIR but the respondents have falsely implicated him for initiating coercive action under the Act of 2006 solely on the basis of some call details. In substance, petitioner has set out a case that the respondents sans any incriminating action of preventive detention by him have acted in clear derogation of provisions of the Act of 2006 as well as Rules of 1965. Petitioner has also asserted that under the Right to Information Act he made endeavour to obtain requisite information about preparation/opening of history-sheet against him but his that effort proved abortive inasmuch as Addl. Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur Rural, Jodhpur declined to divulge any information to him in this behalf. It is also submitted by the petitioner that on inquiry it was revealed that history-sheet was opened against him at Police Station Balesar in clear negation of the Rules of 1965. With a view to assail the impugned action of respondents, petitioner has pleaded that the same has violated his fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. A ground is also set out to challenge the impugned action by urging that any action initiated under the Act of 2006, based on subjective satisfaction of the State Government, pre-supposes availability of cogent material for arriving at a conclusion that action of an individual is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Reference is also made in the penultimate paragraph of the petition that history-sheet, which was opened earlier at Police Station Balesar, has been transferred to Deputy Commissioner of Police (West), Jodhpur in an arbitrary and perfunctory manner and on that count alone the same merits annulment.;