Allahabad HC Directs State To Look Into Procedure Of Opening Of History Sheet & Make Necessary Amendments For Providing Opportunity Of Objection
The Allahabad High Court allowed Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petitions of accused persons against the Order by which approval for opening history sheet of Category-B against them was granted.
The Allahabad High Court has directed the State to look into the procedure of opening of history sheet and make necessary amendments or issue guidelines for providing opportunity of objection to the person, against whom the police submits report recommending the opening of history sheet of Class-A or Class-B before the Senior Police Official.
The Court directed thus in a batch of Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petitions preferred by three sons and their father against the Order by which the approval for opening history sheet of Category-B against them was granted.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Siddharth and Justice Subhash Chandra Sharma ordered, “The State Government is directed to look into the procedure of opening of history sheet and make/ issue necessary amendments/guidelines for providing opportunity of objection to the person, against whom, the police submits report recommending the opening of history sheet of Class-A or Class-B before the Senior Police Official. The State Government will also provide for review of the history sheets opened against the citizen, every year, so that, in the cases where implication of persons against whom history sheet was opened and who have been subsequently exonerated/acquitted of the criminal charges, their history sheets are closed and shadow of surveillance by police on their life and liberty gets removed.”
The Bench noted that the opening of history sheet is not the same as implication of an individual in a criminal case because of committing some crime.
Advocates J.B. Singh and Rajiv Lochan Shukla appeared on behalf of the Petitioners while AGA Manju Thakur appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
Factual Background
History sheets were opened against the Petitioners on the basis of implication in common cases. The Petitioners were 3 sons and their father who prayed to quash the Order of the Deputy Commissioner of Police whereby approval for opening history sheet of Category-B against them was granted. Further prayer was made for directing the Respondents to stop surveillance of the Petitioners in pursuant of the said Order. As per the Writ Petition, a politically motivated case was registered against the Petitioners’ father and others under Section 2 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 without there being any prior criminal history.
Hence, their father approached the High Court whereby an Interim Order was passed in his favour. After counter affidavit was called in the Writ Petition, the police realized that it would be difficult to resist the challenge to the FIR lodged under the Gangsters Act before the Court and hence, a case under Section 386 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) got registered against the Petitioners and their father. The Station House Officer (SHO) then submitted a report before the Deputy Commissioner of Police for opening Class-B history sheet of the Petitioners and the same was accepted. This was challenged before the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in the above context of the case, said, “The order of opening of history sheet is passed by the Senior Officer of Police by only approving the report of the police station. … By opening history sheet the police gets the right of surveillance of the history sheeter. Whether the police report submitted before the higher police authority for approval is correct or not is not considered nor the person sought to be made a history sheeter is ever afforded opportunity to put his version against the police report.”
The Court observed that after opening of Class-B history sheet, the history sheeter remains under surveillance for life and his right to liberty is severely effected in the name of surveillance. It added that he is vulnerable to police dictate, threat, and coercion throughout his life and in such a situation, subjecting a citizen of a sovereign democratic State to surveillance cannot be said to be in accordance of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
“Such a person is condemned unheard. The concept of equality of law and equal protection of law provided under Article 14 of the Constitution of India is brutally violated. The offence enumerated for opening Class-A history sheet are dacoity, burglary, cattle-theft railway-goods wagon theft and abetment thereof. It is notable that the offences enumerated in the Class-A of his history sheet are not much committed now. Therefore, the police has unfettered power to implicate anyone on the basis of any offence by making a report to the higher police authority for opening Class-B history sheet. Considering the present state of affairs, rampant false implications, because of personal and political rivalry, provisions regarding opening of history sheets need to be reviewed”, it further noted.
The Court was of the view that the police has absolute powers of opening Class-B history sheet against any citizen of the country on any pretext, like implication in single case under Gangsters Act and implication of other Petitioners in one case of exhortation on account of personal/business rivalry with the informant and implication in another case under Section 2/3 (1) of Gangsters Act on its basis.
“The police is clearly acting against the mandate of the Constitution of India laid down under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India on the basis of pre-independence regulations. It is high time that this practice should be stopped and before opening of history sheet of Class-A or Class-B against any citizen of the State, he should be given one opportunity to submit his objection before it is accepted by higher official of the police and before such officer directs opening of any Class of history sheet against a citizen”, it remarked.
Furthermore, the Court said that while directing opening of history sheet of Class -A and Class -B, the higher police authority shall record his reasons for directing opening of history sheet of any Class after considering the objection of the citizen filed against the report of the police station.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Petitions and quashed the impugned history sheets.
Cause Title- Firoj Malik v. State of U.P. and 4 Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:9549-DB)
