Veerey Yadav v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy

1. Heard Sri Wali Nawaz Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms Ankita Tripathi, learned AGA appearing for the State/opposite parties who has produced instructions obtained by her and the same are taken on record.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari seeking quashment of the impugned History Sheet No. 2431A opened against the petitioner in Police Station Kotwali City, District Hardoi and further a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties to close the history sheet and not to surveillance the petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid history sheet.

3. Precisely the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per Regulation 240 of the U.P. Police Regulations, history sheets of both classes (A and B) may be opened under two situations (i) on suspicion; and (ii) on conviction or acquittal and no history sheet can be opened without the orders of the Superintendent of Police. It is very emphatically argued on behalf of the petitioner that in the instant case, there is no such order by the Superintendent of Police (respondent no. 2) as required under Regulation 240. He further submits that the impugned history sheet has been opened without there being any case against the petitioner of such a category as provided under Regulation 228. 2 CRLP No. 7820 of 2025

4. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the communication dated 3.11.2022 issued by the Director General of Police, U.P., whereby a guideline has been issued, to be followed by the respective police officers while opening/reviewing the history sheet of Class-A. He submits that the said guideline has also been ignored by the concerned police authorities.

5. It has been asserted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that although the petitioner has been implicated in a number of criminal cases but he has not been convicted by a competent court of law in any of the cases till date and thus, it can be safely inferred that false and concocted cases are being registered against him due to political rivalry and personal enmity just to ruin the career and image of the petitioner in the society.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgement passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7463 of 2025: Rama Shankar Vs. State of U.P. decided on 29.8.2025 wherein it has been observed that history sheet against any person cannot be opened through a mechanical exercise and there must be a careful and thorough analysis of the cases before taking such a punitive action and that the opening of a history sheet must be done on the basis of subjective satisfaction of the competent authority keeping in view the relevant rules and regulations.

7. Learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to Para 18 of the judgement in the case of Rama Shankar (supra), which deals with the term ‘habitual criminal’. The Court in Para-18 made the following observations : “18. It is also provided that there will be two classes of History-sheets namely Class A and Class B. The process to start a History-sheet of a criminal arises from the stage that a particular person is considered or thought to be a confirmed or professional criminal for which there should be some basis or material and in case of complete absence of such material, the action in starting a History-sheet will be illegal and without jurisdiction. From perusal of Regulation 228 of the U.P. Police Regulations, it is explicit that the History-sheets can be opened only for the persons who are or likely to become habitual criminal or abettors of such criminals. The word 'Only' used in the said Regulation reflects the scope of 3 CRLP No. 7820 of 2025 Regulation 228 of the Regulations only, meaning thereby that the History-sheets can be opened either for the persons who are or likely to become 'habitual criminal or 'abettors of such criminals'. The expression 'Habitual Criminal' has been categorically interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case of Vijay Narain Singh versus State of Bihar, reported in (1984) 3 SCC 14, AIR 1984 SC 1334. Speaking for the majority, His Lordship, Hon'ble E.S. Venkataramaiah, J. held: justify an "The expression 'habitually' means 'repeatedly' or 'persistently'. It implies a thread of continuity stringing together similar repetitive acts. Repeated, persistent and similar, but not isolated, individual and dissimilar inference of acts are necessary ......cannot habit...........A single act or omission therefore be characterised as a habitual act or omission ........ Because the idea of 'habit' involves an element of persistence and tendency to repeat the acts or omissions of the same class or kind, if the acts or omissions in question are not of the same kind or even if they are of the same kind when they are committed with a long interval of time between them they cannot be treated as habitual ones."

8. Per contra, Ms. Ankita Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently opposed the writ petition mainly on two grounds viz. (i) that the petitioner has a criminal history and is involved in 31 criminal cases and as such, the action of opening history sheet against the petitioner is absolutely justified and cannot be interfered by this Court; and (ii) that the petitioner without exhausting the remedy of raising his grievance before the appropriate authority i.e. the concerned Superintendent of Police, has rushed to this Court by filing the present writ petition and as such, the writ petition being premature, is liable to be dismissed.

9. Confronted with the aforesaid objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the present writ petition may be disposed of at this stage with liberty to the petitioner to prefer a detailed representation before the Superintendent of Police, Hardoi (respondent no. 2) in terms of the provisions as contemplated under the U.P. Police Regulations.

10. Taking into consideration the settled law on the subject and the prayer 4 CRLP No. 7820 of 2025 made by the petitioner seeking liberty to file a representation, this Court is of the considered opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the present writ petition pending. According the present writ petition is disposed of at this stage by granting liberty to the petitioner to prefer a comprehensive representation before the Superintendent of Police, Hardoi (respondent no. 2), raising all pleas and grounds which are available to him. In case such a representation alongwith relevant documents is filed by the petitioner before the respondent no. 2 within a period of two weeks from today, the Superintendent of Police, Hardoi shall consider the same in the light of the observations made by this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7463 of 2025: Rama Shankar Vs. State of U.P. decided on 29.8.2025, referred to above, and shall pass a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in consonance with the relevant Regulations of U.P. Police Regulations.

11. The Superintendent of Police shall deal with each and every ground raised by the petitioner through his representation after summoning the relevant records from the concerned police station, within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of filing of the representation.

12. It is expected that in the meanwhile, the petitioner shall not be subjected to any unnecessary harassment by the police authorities in pursuance of the history sheet in question.

13. It is made clear that we have not entered into the merits of the case and have not interfered with the impugned history sheet.

14. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of finally. (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) September 18, 2025 Fahim/- MOHD FAHIM AKHTAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Wali Nawaz Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms Ankita Tripathi, learned AGA appearing for the State/opposite parties who has produced instructions obtained by her and the same are taken on record.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari seeking quashment of the impugned History Sheet No. 2431A opened against the petitioner in Police Station Kotwali City, District Hardoi and further a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties to close the history sheet and not to surveillance the petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid history sheet.

3. Precisely the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per Regulation 240 of the U.P. Police Regulations, history sheets of both classes (A and B) may be opened under two situations (i) on suspicion; and (ii) on conviction or acquittal and no history sheet can be opened without the orders of the Superintendent of Police. It is very emphatically argued on behalf of the petitioner that in the instant case, there is no such order by the Superintendent of Police (respondent no. 2) as required under Regulation 240. He further submits that the impugned history sheet has been opened without there being any case against the petitioner of such a category as provided under Regulation 228. 2 CRLP No. 7820 of 2025

4. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the communication dated 3.11.2022 issued by the Director General of Police, U.P., whereby a guideline has been issued, to be followed by the respective police officers while opening/reviewing the history sheet of Class-A. He submits that the said guideline has also been ignored by the concerned police authorities.

5. It has been asserted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that although the petitioner has been implicated in a number of criminal cases but he has not been convicted by a competent court of law in any of the cases till date and thus, it can be safely inferred that false and concocted cases are being registered against him due to political rivalry and personal enmity just to ruin the career and image of the petitioner in the society.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgement passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7463 of 2025: Rama Shankar Vs. State of U.P. decided on 29.8.2025 wherein it has been observed that history sheet against any person cannot be opened through a mechanical exercise and there must be a careful and thorough analysis of the cases before taking such a punitive action and that the opening of a history sheet must be done on the basis of subjective satisfaction of the competent authority keeping in view the relevant rules and regulations.

7. Learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to Para 18 of the judgement in the case of Rama Shankar (supra), which deals with the term ‘habitual criminal’. The Court in Para-18 made the following observations : “18. It is also provided that there will be two classes of History-sheets namely Class A and Class B. The process to start a History-sheet of a criminal arises from the stage that a particular person is considered or thought to be a confirmed or professional criminal for which there should be some basis or material and in case of complete absence of such material, the action in starting a History-sheet will be illegal and without jurisdiction. From perusal of Regulation 228 of the U.P. Police Regulations, it is explicit that the History-sheets can be opened only for the persons who are or likely to become habitual criminal or abettors of such criminals. The word 'Only' used in the said Regulation reflects the scope of 3 CRLP No. 7820 of 2025 Regulation 228 of the Regulations only, meaning thereby that the History-sheets can be opened either for the persons who are or likely to become 'habitual criminal or 'abettors of such criminals'. The expression 'Habitual Criminal' has been categorically interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case of Vijay Narain Singh versus State of Bihar, reported in (1984) 3 SCC 14, AIR 1984 SC 1334. Speaking for the majority, His Lordship, Hon'ble E.S. Venkataramaiah, J. held: justify an "The expression 'habitually' means 'repeatedly' or 'persistently'. It implies a thread of continuity stringing together similar repetitive acts. Repeated, persistent and similar, but not isolated, individual and dissimilar inference of acts are necessary ......cannot habit...........A single act or omission therefore be characterised as a habitual act or omission ........ Because the idea of 'habit' involves an element of persistence and tendency to repeat the acts or omissions of the same class or kind, if the acts or omissions in question are not of the same kind or even if they are of the same kind when they are committed with a long interval of time between them they cannot be treated as habitual ones."

8. Per contra, Ms. Ankita Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently opposed the writ petition mainly on two grounds viz. (i) that the petitioner has a criminal history and is involved in 31 criminal cases and as such, the action of opening history sheet against the petitioner is absolutely justified and cannot be interfered by this Court; and (ii) that the petitioner without exhausting the remedy of raising his grievance before the appropriate authority i.e. the concerned Superintendent of Police, has rushed to this Court by filing the present writ petition and as such, the writ petition being premature, is liable to be dismissed.

9. Confronted with the aforesaid objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the present writ petition may be disposed of at this stage with liberty to the petitioner to prefer a detailed representation before the Superintendent of Police, Hardoi (respondent no. 2) in terms of the provisions as contemplated under the U.P. Police Regulations.

10. Taking into consideration the settled law on the subject and the prayer 4 CRLP No. 7820 of 2025 made by the petitioner seeking liberty to file a representation, this Court is of the considered opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the present writ petition pending. According the present writ petition is disposed of at this stage by granting liberty to the petitioner to prefer a comprehensive representation before the Superintendent of Police, Hardoi (respondent no. 2), raising all pleas and grounds which are available to him. In case such a representation alongwith relevant documents is filed by the petitioner before the respondent no. 2 within a period of two weeks from today, the Superintendent of Police, Hardoi shall consider the same in the light of the observations made by this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7463 of 2025: Rama Shankar Vs. State of U.P. decided on 29.8.2025, referred to above, and shall pass a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in consonance with the relevant Regulations of U.P. Police Regulations.

11. The Superintendent of Police shall deal with each and every ground raised by the petitioner through his representation after summoning the relevant records from the concerned police station, within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of filing of the representation.

12. It is expected that in the meanwhile, the petitioner shall not be subjected to any unnecessary harassment by the police authorities in pursuance of the history sheet in question.

13. It is made clear that we have not entered into the merits of the case and have not interfered with the impugned history sheet.

14. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of finally. (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) September 18, 2025 Fahim/- MOHD FAHIM AKHTAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench