Skip to content


Ved Prakash Gulati Vs. Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Others - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subject Criminal
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Writ Petn. No. 41 of 1983
Judge
Reported in1983(5)DRJ142
ActsPolice Rules - Rule 23.9(2); Constitution of India - Article 226
AppellantVed Prakash Gulati
RespondentCommissioner of Police, New Delhi and Others
Advocates: S.N. Mehta and; S.T. Singh, Advs
Excerpt:
punjab police rules 23.4 and 23.9--petitioner challenged the order to the maintenance of his history sheet. in reply the respondent stated that the petitioner was facing trial in 6 cases.; that the condition precedent for order under police rule 23 9 2) is not satisfied. - - 23.9(2) is not satisfied...... 1. 619 18.9.77 506/342/392/ fatal pending 34/471/420/ nagar trial. 511 ipc 2. 170 3.4.81 420/468/471/ tilak pending 120-b, ipc. nagar trial. 3. 629 21.5.82 448 ipc kotwali pending trial. 4. 317 12.6.82 147, 148, 149, patel pending 353, 186 ipc nagar trial. 5. 445 26.8.82 506 ipc patel pending nagar trial. 6. 481 13.9.82 452/506 ipc patel pending nagar. trial. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3. the relevant police rule is 23.9(2). under the said rule a history sheet may be opened by or under the written order of a police officer not below the rank of inspector for any person not entered in police register no. 10 'who is reasonably believed to be habitually addicted to crime or to be an aider or.....
Judgment:

Aggarwal, J.

1. The petitioner Ved Prakash Gulati by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alleges violation of his fundamental rights of freedom and privacy by the action of respondent No. 2 in bringing his name on the surveillance register and further by opening his history sheet. The petitioner alleges that for various reasons, the details of which are given in the petition, the respondents and adopted against him a vindictive and hostile attitude.

2. The respondents in reply have denied that the petitioner has been brought on the surveillance register. However, it has not been disputed that an order for maintaining the history sheet of the petitioner has been made. The respondents in Annexure R-1 to the reply have given the details of the criminal cases in which the petitioner is alleged to be involved. The details of the cases are as follows :

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sr. FIR Dated Under Police Position No.

No. Section Station

------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. 619 18.9.77 506/342/392/ Fatal Pending

34/471/420/ Nagar trial.

511 IPC

2. 170 3.4.81 420/468/471/ Tilak Pending

120-B, IPC. Nagar trial.

3. 629 21.5.82 448 IPC Kotwali Pending

trial.

4. 317 12.6.82 147, 148, 149, Patel Pending

353, 186 IPC Nagar trial.

5. 445 26.8.82 506 IPC Patel Pending

Nagar trial.

6. 481 13.9.82 452/506 IPC Patel Pending

Nagar. trial.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. The relevant police rule is 23.9(2). Under the said rule a history sheet may be opened by or under the written order of a police officer not below the rank of Inspector for any person not entered in police register No. 10 'who is reasonably believed to be habitually addicted to crime or to be an aider or abettor of such persons.'

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused all the relevant material placed before us and we are of the view that the condition precedent for an order under Police R. 23.9(2) is not satisfied.

5. The petitioner has explained that the first case mentioned in Annexure R-1 was filed against him by his ex-partner and the third case was registered by the police on a report by Gulshan and Saleem who used to work with him on daily wages but subsequently wanted to take possession of the back portion of the shop.

6. We are of the view that the cases mentioned in Annexure R-1 are not such on the basis of which an opinion could be formed that the petitioner is habitually addicted to crime. The cases mentioned are also not of the category which may endanger public peace or security.

7. There is material on the record that sometime in 1982 the petitioner had complained against Sub-Inspectors Kabul Singh and Subey Singh and the said complaint was enquired into by a Police Inspector of Vigilance Department and he had recommended departmental action against the said officers.

8. The background of the petitioner is that he is a graduate from the Delhi University. He is married and has a family. He has parents, brothers and sisters. He is running a radio shop with his father at old Lajpat Nagar.

9. For the reasons stated we allow the petition and quash the order of the respondents for opening a history sheet of the petitioner under Police R. 23.9(2).

10. Petition allowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //