1 2025:CGHC:2975-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WP(CR) No. 478 of 2024 Dharamveer Kumar Singh @ Chhotan Singh S/o Late Shri Ram Naresh Singh Aged About 53 Years R/o Godhanpur, Vasundhra Vihar, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Chhattisgarh, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Superintendent of Police, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 3. Superintendent of Police, Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Samrath Singh Marhas, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Mr. Sangarsh Pandey, GA. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice. 17.01.2025. 1. Petitioner has filed this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India seek following reliefs: “10.1. Call for the entire records of the case of the petitioner for kind perusal. 2 10.2. Issue appropriate writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders and to direct the police authorities to remove the name of the petitioner from the history sheet of police station Balrampur and close the surveillance against the petitioner with immediate effect. 10.3. Quash/set aside the order dated 10.07.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by Respondent No.3. 10.3.(A). Quash/set aside the order dated 27.10.2018 (Annexure P/11) passed by the Respondent No.3. 10.4. Issue appropriate writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders and to award suitable compensation to the petitioner from the erring police authorities. 10.5. Any other relief, which the Hon'ble Court deems fit looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted to the petitioner.” 2. Relevant facts for disposal of this petition are that petitioner is a ‘Contractor’, running a firm namely "M/s. Dharamveer Kumar Singh," which is registered firm. Several offences was registered against the petitioner before multiple Police Station under the Indian Penal Code in the years 2002, 2005, 2015 & 2018 as well as preventive actions under Sections 107/116 of the Cr.P.C in the year 1994, 2002, 2010, 2015, 2018 & 2023. Vide order dated 27.10.2018, respondent No.3/Superintendent of Police, Balrampur Ramanujganj permitting to include the name of the petitioner in the gunda list/to open a history sheet against him on the letter of Station House Officer, Police Station -Balrampur. The petitioner came to know through the daily newspaper that surveillance has been opened against him and his name has been included in the Gunda list/history sheet by Police Station -Balrampur on the recommendation of respondent No.3. Though the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal cases registered against him in the year 2002, 2005 & 2015, but 3 the Police have continued to take action against him, adversely affecting his reputation and business as his name has been circulated in the daily newspaper. Earlier, petitioner had filed a writ petition (WPCR No. 218 of 2019) before this Court seeking relief to remove his name from the history sheet, which was disposed off on 12.05.2023 with a direction to respondent No.3/Superintendent of Police to decide the complaint/representation of the petitioner dated 08.12.2018 (Annexure P- 4), however, on 10.07.2023 said representation has been rejected without proper consideration. Thereafter, the Police lodged Ishtgasha No.20/2023 under Section 110 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner on the ground that various crimes/offence has been registered against the petitioner on multiples police station and added one more Ishtgasha No.369/2023 under Section 107 & 116(3) Cr.P.C stating that there is a possibility of breach of peace in society. The police has filed Ishtgasha No.20/2024 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Balrampur Ramanujganj on 30.10.2023 and surveillance was opened which was registered as Criminal Case No. 07/2023. The SDO without application of mind, mechanically passed the preliminary order on the same day and issued the show-cause-notice to the petitioner. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the petitioner came to know about the fact that his name has been included in the Gunda list/history sheet and he is under surveillance of the Police, he made inquiries and then he came to know that on the instructions of the then Home Minister of the State, said action has been taken against him. The blue-eyed persons of the then Home Minister have grabbed sum of Rs.3 crores of the petitioner in the business of contractor ship, to which, petitioner made complaint against him before the PS -Balrampur vide 4 complaint dated 08.02.2016, thereafter, as a counter blast, they used their influence and action have been taken against the petitioner. Since, no action has been taken by the police on the complaint, again on 01.05.2018 the petitioner made a complaint to the Inspector General, Surguja Range, Ambikapur, and raised his grievance and on 08.12.2018 before Superintendent of Police, Balrampur – Ramanujganj, however, no action has been taken on his complaint till date as the Police could not collect evidence of the alleged accused persons and allowed them to manage all the evidences against them. This act of the police further confirms its collusion with the alleged accused persons which needs proper inquiry from an independent agency. The alleged accused persons have used their political powers and influenced the police to take action against the petitioner. By the act and action of the respondent authorities, the petitioner is suffering adversely and his reputation in the society is being affected badly and his business is also affected. Learned Counsel further submits that the Police/respondents-authorities opened the surveillance against the petitioner and entered his name in the Gunda list/history sheet ignoring the fact that he has not been convicted in any of the offence/crime registered against him. The offences/crime registered against the petitioner in the year 2002, 2005, 2015 & 2018 are simple in nature. Vide order dated 27.10.2018, respondent No.3 recommended/permitted to include name of the petitioner in gunda list/history sheet without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner ie pre-decisional or post decisional and the same suffers from violation of principles of natural justice. The order dated 27.10.2018 (Annexure P/11) and order dated 10.07.2023 (Annexure P/1) clearly demonstrates that the same have been passed in a mechanical manner 5 and without application of mind as there is no finding in the impugned orders that the petitioner is a habitual criminal. Mere registration of the offences and istagasas against the petitioner does not mean that the petitioner is a habitual offender/criminal or the circumstance to suggest that the Petitioner is a habitual criminal for the purpose of invoking Regulation 651 of MP/CG Police Regulations against him. Name of the petitioner included in the gunda list/history sheet since the year 2018 and it has been more than 6 years in contravention of the provisions of Regulation 652 of the MP/CG Police Acts and Regulation, which provides for maintaining history of suspect for over a year and within that period decide whether the petitioner should be bound over under Section 110 Cr.P.C., or brought under regular surveillance, or the history sheet closed. However, no any decision to bound him under Section 110 Cr.P.C. or bring him under regular surveillance or closing history sheet is taken. Hence, it is prayed that impugned orders dated 10.07.2023 (Annexure P/1) & 27.10.2018 (Annexure P/11) be quash/set aside. 4. Learned State Counsel opposing the submissions of counsel for the petitioner and would submit that by this writ petition petitioner has challenged the action of the respondent authorities who opened surveillance against him and entered his name in the Gunda list/history sheet. As per the petitioner, since the complaint was made by him against certain blue eyed persons of the then Home Minister and, therefore, as a counter blast the alleged action has been taken against him. In compliance of order of this Court’s dated 12.05.2023 passed in WPCR No.218 of 2019, complaint/representation of the petitioner dated 08.12.2018 (Annexure P-4) has been decided on 10.07.2023 by respondent No.3. It is evident from the impugned order dated 10.07.2023 6 (Annexure P-1) that there are 06 offences registered against the petitioner from the year from 2002 to 2020 and further that 08 Istagasa/preventive actions have also been taken against the petitioner from the year 1994 to 2023, thus it is clear that the petitioner is a habitual offender/criminal and the decision of the answering respondents is appropriate and therefore would not warrant interference by this Court. Name of the petitioner has been included in the gunda list/history sheet by the concerned Police Station as per provisions of MP/CG Police Acts and Regulation. Order to include petitioner's name in the history sheet was issued on 27.10.2018, however, later on 01 offence has been registered against him in the year 2020 and 03 times preventive action have been taken against him in the year 2022 & 2023, thus it is clear that the petitioner has not improved his conduct continue to commit the crime/offences. It is pertinent to mention here that petitioner has been acquitted in 02 cases on the ground of settlement between the parties and not on merits. So far as proceeding U/s 110 of Cr.P.C. is concerned, the order-sheet of this case itself shows that opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. In view of above, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for and the present petition is being devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard, Mr. Samrath Singh Marhas, learned counsel for the petitioner as also Mr. Sangarsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent/State and perused the records. 6. Regulation 651 & 652 of the MP/CG Police Regulation reproduced herein below :s “[651. History Sheets-Part V. -History sheets are maintained under the orders of the District Superintendent of Police for (a) all ex-convicts who are under regular 7 surveillance, (b) police registered ex-convicts who are not under regular surveillance, (c) all persons bound over under Sections 109 and 110, Criminal Procedure Code, and (d) persons who, there is reason to suspect, are habitual criminals, even though nothing definite can be proved against them. Ordinarily, history sheets will be opened on orders issued by the Superintendent on conviction slips. If a station officer is of opinion that a history sheet should be opened for a person, who though not convicted, is reasonably suspected of being a habitual thief, a habitual receiver of stolen property or of being concerned in systematic cattle theft or other serious offences against property thee will apply through the Circle Inspector for permission to open a history sheet. History sheets should never be opened for petty or casual criminals, or for any person who has no fixed residency such as a member of a vandering tribe. 652. A person not under regular surveillance, for whom a history sheet is maintained, should be watched quitely and information collected about him from village officials and others when opportunity offers. He must not be subjected to any annoyance of obtrusive inquiries, nor must the fact that an account is being kept of his doings be divulged. The object of the history sheet is to enable the station officer and Circle Inspector to decide whether or not a suspect is really a dangerous criminal, and it should ordinarily not be necessary to maintain the history for over a year. It should be possible to decide within that period whether the suspect should be bound over under Section 110, Criminal Procedure Code, or brought under regular surveillance, or the history sheet closed.” 7. It is reflecting from the pleadings and impugned order that last case under Section 107/1016 of Cr.PC against the petitioner is of the year 2023 and this fact should have been taken into consideration while deciding the representation of the petitioner, but respondent-authority has 8 not taken this fact and rejected his representation by the impugned order. 8. Considering facts of the case, pleadings made in the petition, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, provisions contained in Regulation 651 & 652 of the MP/CG Police Acts and Regulation, we are of the considered view that impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 9. According, the present petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 10.07.2023 (Annexure P/1) & 27.10.2018 (Annexure P-11) are hereby quashed. However, concerned respondents authorities may pass the fresh order, if so required after assessing the conduct of the petitioner. CC as per rules. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice J.