IQBAL KHAN vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN
- Court
- Rajasthan High Court
[2026:RJ-JD:26784]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1662/2026
Iqbal Khan S/o Shri Ismile Khan, Aged About 62 Years, R/o
Musalmano Ka Vas, Krishnaganj, Tehsil Sirohi, District Sirohi,
Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor
2. Director General of Police, Police Headquarter, Lalkothi,
Tonk Phatak, Jaipur, Rajasthan
3. Superintendent of Police, Sirohi, Rajasthan
4. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Circle Reodar, District
Sirohi, Rajasthan
5. SHO, Police Station Anadara, District Sirohi, Rajasthan
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bharat Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hanuman Prajapati, PP
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Reportable Judgment
Judgment reserved on 18/05/2026
Judgment pronounced on 05/06/2026
1. The present writ petition has been filed in the year 2026
raising a challenge to order dated 24.04.2014 (Annexure-2)
passed by the Superintendent of Police, Sirohi, whereby the
history sheet of the petitioner stood reopened from the silent bag
and he was placed under active surveillance.
2. The facts are that the history sheet of petitioner Iqbal Khan
initially was opened vide order dated 28.03.1986 because of six
criminal cases having been registered against him between the
years 1986 to 1997. However, as all the matters stood
(Uploaded on 11/06/2026 at 07:42:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/06/2026 at 12:31:28 AM)
(2 of 12)
[2026:RJ-JD:26784] [CRLW-1662/2026]
compromised and the petitioner was acquitted on the basis of said
compromise, the history sheet was placed in the silent bag vide
order dated 19.05.2005. However, subsequently, FIR Nos.101 and
103, of the same date i.e., 15.08.2012 were registered against the
petitioner at Police Station Anadara, District Sirohi for offences
under Sections 307, 341, 323, 147, 148 and 149, IPC & Section
3(1)(1), SC/ST Act and Sections 307, 341, 323, 147, 148, 149,
427, 505, 353, 332, 353A and 295A, IPC & Section 3 of the
Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, respectively.
In view of the said FIRs being registered against the petitioner, the
Superintendent of Police, Sirohi passed impugned order dated
24.04.2014 directing to reopen the history sheet. It is the said
order which is under challenge in the present petition.
3. It is an admitted fact that qua FIR No.101/2012, the
petitioner stood acquitted on 25.09.2019 while giving him the
benefit of doubt. So far as the FIR No.103/2012 is concerned, after
the charge sheet being filed, the parties compromised. In terms of
the said compromise, an application for withdrawal of the
prosecution was filed on behalf of the State under Section 321,
Cr.P.C. which however was dismissed by the learned Court. The
said order stood challenged in Criminal Revision Petition
No.820/2025 and the revision petition stood allowed vide order
dated 08.07.2025. As a consequence, the petitioner stood
discharged from all the charges.
4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the petitioner
having been acquitted/discharged in both the matters, the
respondents have been regularly issuing preventive summons in
every six months to the petitioner under Sections 108, 110 Cr.P.C./
(Uploaded on 11/06/2026 at 07:42:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/06/2026 at 12:31:28 AM)
(3 of 12)
[2026:RJ-JD:26784] [CRLW-1662/2026]
126, 129 BNSS. As a consequence, the petitioner is required to
execute a bond in every six months and the same is causing a
serious mental harassment to the petitioner.
5. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has since
reformed and has been actively involved in various social welfare
activities and has even been issued appreciation letters by various
social organizations. Reopening of the history sheet of the
petitioner is in contravention to Rule 4.4 and 4.9 of the Rajasthan
Police Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1965’)
6. Counsel while relying upon the Co-ordinate Bench judgment
of this Court at Jaipur Bench, in Kaptan Singh Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.1134/2025
(decided on 04.12.2025) submitted that the petitioner having
never been convicted, no history sheet qua him could have been
opened. Further, the petitioner cannot be termed to a ‘habitual
offender’.
7. Counsel while further relying upon the Co-ordinate Bench
judgment in Sanjay Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B.
Criminal Misc. Petition No.792/2016 and other connected
matters (decided on 23.01.2023) submitted that the petitioner
does not fall under any of the criteria/guideline as laid down
therein and hence, the history sheet of the petitioner deserve to be
quashed.
8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that after the
history sheet of the petitioner being kept in the silent bag in the
year 2005, he again got involved in crime and two FIRs and one
complaint stood registered against him in the year 2012. It is in
view of the above FIRs that the history sheet of the petitioner was
(Uploaded on 11/06/2026 at 07:42:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/06/2026 at 12:31:28 AM)
(4 of 12)
[2026:RJ-JD:26784] [CRLW-1662/2026]
reopened. It has been submitted that the petitioner played a key
role in the communal riots which took place in village Krishnaganj
in the year 2012. Section 23 of the Police Act, 1861 casts a duty
upon the police to prevent commission of offences and to collect
and communicate intelligence affecting the public peace. For the
efficient discharge of their duties, the police officers are
empowered by the rules of 1965 to open the history sheet of
suspects and to enter their name in Surveillance Register. The
history sheet of the petitioner was hence, requisite to be opened in
terms of law.
9. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the term ‘habitual
offender’ cannot be construed in a narrow sense and the said term
would definitely include a person who is repeatedly, persistently
and frequently involved in criminal activities. A regular surveillance
of such person is essential and is perfectly in terms of the Rules of
1965.
10. While relying upon Rule 4.9(2) of the Rules of 1965, learned
Public Prosecutor submits that the Superintendent of Police is
entitled to pass written orders for opening of a history sheet of a
person who is reasonably believed to be habitually addicted to
crime.
11. Heard the Counsels. Perused the record.
12. Before entering into the adjudication of the issues involved,
it is relevant to note that it is the order of year 2014 which is
under challenge in the writ petition which has been filed in the
year 2026. Ordinarily, the Court would not have entertained such a
delayed petition, but then, keeping into consideration the fact that
(Uploaded on 11/06/2026 at 07:42:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/06/2026 at 12:31:28 AM)
(5 of 12)
[2026:RJ-JD:26784] [CRLW-1662/2026]
the effect of the impugned order is a recurring one, the issue
deserves to be adjudicated and hence, the Court proceeds further.
13. In Kaptan Singh (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench, while
applying the definition of ‘habitual offender’ as provided under the
Rajasthan Habitual Offenders Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as
‘the Act of 1953’) held that a person can be declared to be a
‘habitual offender’ only if three convictions have been recorded
against him. The petitioner therein had not been convicted in any
of the case and hence, the Court held that he did not fall within the
definition of ‘habitual offender’.
14. So far as the application of the definition of ‘habitual
offender’ in terms of the Act of 1953 on Rule 4.4(3)(b) of the Rules
of 1965 is concerned, this Court is of the clear opinion that the
said definition cannot be applied to the said rule. Rule 4.4(3)(b) of
the Rules of 1965 specifically provides that in part (II) of
Surveillance Register No.8, names of such persons can be entered
who are reasonably believed to be habitual offenders or receivers
of stolen property whether they have been convicted or not .
Meaning thereby, Rule 4.4(3)(b) does not presuppose any
conviction, rather, it incorporates a specific stipulation that
conviction is not mandatory. In that event, the definition of
‘habitual offender’ as provided under the Act of 1953 which
presupposes three convictions, definitely cannot be applied to the
said rule. A ratio to the said effect has been laid down by a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench, in Laxmi Narayan
Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.13591/2014 (decided on 05.01.2017) wherein the Court
observed as under:
(Uploaded on 11/06/2026 at 07:42:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/06/2026 at 12:31:28 AM)
(6 of 12)
[2026:RJ-JD:26784] [CRLW-1662/2026]
“I have appreciated the arguments but do not
find any force therein. The Rules of 1965 does not
provide definition of “habitual offender”. It does
not make reference or give direction to import the
definition of “habitual offender” given under the
Act of 1953. In absence of definition of “habitual
offender” under the Rules of 1965, it can be taken
from dictionary and not from the Act of 1953. If
intention of the legislature would have been to
apply the definition of “habitual offender”, as
provided under the Act of 1953 then it could have
been referred specifically under the Rules of 1965
itself. It is missing therein and contrary to the
intent of legislature, this court cannot apply the
definition given under any other Act. ”
15. Therein, the Court while taking into consideration the ratio
laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Dhanji Ram Sharma
Vs. Superintendent of Police, North Dist., Delhi Police and
Ors.; AIR 1996 SC 1766 referred to the definition of ‘habitual
offender’ as given under the Law Lexicon and as relied upon by
Hon’ble Apex Court, as under:
“ Habitual offender.-A habitual offender or a
person habitually addicted to crime is one who
is a criminal by habit or by disposition formed
by repetition of crimes. Reasonable belief of
the Police officer that the suspect is a habitual
offender or is a person habitually addicted to
crime is sufficient to justify action. Mere belief
is not sufficient. The belief must be
reasonable. It must be based on reasonable
ground. ”
As per definition quoted above, habitual offender
does not require conviction on three or more occasions
but a person who is habitually involved to committ the
(Uploaded on 11/06/2026 at 07:42:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/06/2026 at 12:31:28 AM)
(7 of 12)
[2026:RJ-JD:26784] [CRLW-1662/2026]
offences or crime. The same definition was given by the
Apex Court in the case of Dhanji Ram Sharma (supra).”
16. This Court is in concurrence with the ratio laid down in
Laxmi Narayan Meena (supra) to the effect that the definition of
‘habitual offender’ as provided under the Act of 1953 cannot be
applied while opening a history sheet in terms of the Rules of
1965. It is Rule 4.9(2) which would apply in such matters. Rule
4.9(2) of the Rules of 1965 provides as under:
“ 4.9 History sheets when opened. - (2) A
history sheet may be opened by, or under the
written orders of a police officer not below the
rank of Inspector for any person not entered in
the surveillance register who is reasonably
believed to be habitually addicted to crime
or to be an aider or abettor of such
persons. ”
17. The above provision specifically provides that a history sheet
may be opened for any person who is reasonably believed to be
habitually addicted to crime or to be an aider or abettor of such
person.
18. While dealing with the akin provisions of Punjab Police Rules,
1934 Hon’ble the Apex Court in Dhanji Ram (supra) laid down the
criteria as to who can be covered under the said provisions, as
under:
“ 7. A habitual offender or a person habitually
addicted to crime is one who is criminal by habit
or by disposition formed by repetition of crimes.
Reasonable belief of the police officer that the
suspect is a habitual offender or is a person
habitually addicted to crime is sufficient to justify
(Uploaded on 11/06/2026 at 07:42:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/06/2026 at 12:31:28 AM)
(8 of 12)
[2026:RJ-JD:26784] [CRLW-1662/2026]
action under Rules 23.4 (3) (b) and 23.9 (2). Mere
belief is not sufficient. The belief must be reasonable, it
must be based on reasonable grounds. The suspect
may or may not have been convicted of any
crime. Even apart from any conviction, there may
be reasonable grounds for believing that he is a
habitual offender. ”
19. Further, the Co-ordinate Bench in Laxmi Narayan Meena
(supra), while relying upon the Apex Court judgment in Malak
Singh & Ors. Vs. State of P & H and Ors.; AIR 1981 SC 760
held as under:
“Para 2 of the judgment gives fact of the
case. Therein, appellant was convicted in a
criminal case but order of conviction was set
aside on appeal. The Apex Court, however,
refused to interfere in the action of the Police
for entering name in the surveillance register.
The only direction given by the Apex Court in
the case of Malak Singh (supra) and also in the
case of Dhanji Ram Sharma (supra) is to take a
cautious decision before entering the name in
the surveillance register.’’
20. Therein, while disagreeing with the earlier view in
Ramgopal Jain Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2015 (1)
RLW 538 (Raj.) , the Court held as under:
“ In the light of judgments of the Apex Court,
I am unable to take view expressed by this court
in the case of Ramgopal Jain (supra) and other
cases. The interpretation to the Rule 4.4(3)(b)
has been given requiring conviction even for a
(Uploaded on 11/06/2026 at 07:42:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/06/2026 at 12:31:28 AM)
(9 of 12)
[2026:RJ-JD:26784] [CRLW-1662/2026]
habitual offender. It is by dividing the said
provision in two parts otherwise if entire
provision is read then for habitual offender and
receiver of stolen property, conviction may or
may not be there. The pari materia provision
was considered by the Apex Court in the case of
Dhanji Ram Sharma (supra) with a finding that
in a case of habitual offender, conviction
may or may not be there.
It is also a fact that if the definition of
“habitual offender” is taken from the Act of 1953
then it would even affect Rule 4.4(3) (a).
Therein, requirement is only of two convictions.
If intention of the legislature would have been to
import the definition of “habitual offender” from
the Act of 1953 requiring three convictions then
provision of Rule 4.4(3)(a) and (b) would have
been provided differently. If a case of habitual
offender requires three convictions then in case
of a person convicted twice and even if not a
habitual offender, name can be entered in the
surveillance register by invoking Rule 4.4(3)(a)
of the Rules of 1965 making Rule 4.4(3)(b) to be
redundant. The Apex Court has refused to
interfere in the judgment of the High Court in the
similar cases where name of habitual offender
was entered in the surveillance register despite
no conviction. The provisions considered therein
are pari materia to the Rules of 1965. ”
21. Keeping into consideration the above settled ratio and
further, the specific provision of Rule 4.9(2) of the Rules of 1965,
this Court is of the clear opinion that a history sheet can be
opened of any person who is reasonably believed to be habitually
addicted to crime or an aider or abettor of such person. Herein,
(Uploaded on 11/06/2026 at 07:42:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/06/2026 at 12:31:28 AM)
(10 of 12)
[2026:RJ-JD:26784] [CRLW-1662/2026]
it is not disputed on record that after the history sheet of the
petitioner having been kept in silent bag in the year 2005, he
again got involved in some criminal activities as a result of which,
two FIRs and one complaint were registered against him in the
year 2012. It is the specific submission on behalf of the
respondent Police Authorities that the petitioner was involved in
the communal riots which took place in village Krishnaganj in the
year 2012. In that event, the action of the Police Authorities in
reopening history sheet of the petitioner in the year 2014 cannot
be faulted with. The order impugned hence, does not deserve any
interference.
22. But then, it is not disputed on record that qua one of the FIR
of year 2012, the petitioner was acquitted and qua the second, he
was discharged in the year 2019. In that event, Rule 4.12(1) of
the Rules of 1965 would definitely come into picture, which
provides that history sheet of a person who is no longer addicted
to crime shall be transferred to his personal file. Further, Rule
4.13(4) of the Rules of 1965 provides that if a person has been of
good behavior continuously for seven years, his personal file may
be ordered to be destructed.
23. In view of the above provisions and keeping into
consideration the fact that no further involvement of the petitioner
in any crime subsequent to 2012 has been averred on behalf of the
respondents, his case now definitely requires to be considered in
terms of Rule 4.12 & 4.13 of the Rules of 1965.
24. Further, in Sanjay (supra), while dealing with a similar
issue, the Court laid down a uniform criteria and observed as
under:
(Uploaded on 11/06/2026 at 07:42:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/06/2026 at 12:31:28 AM)
(11 of 12)
[2026:RJ-JD:26784] [CRLW-1662/2026]
“ 9.1 For the sake of brevity, this Court
arrives at the following uniform criteria to
determine whether an entry of a person’s name in
the surveillance register is justified:
(a) A person having three consecutive
convictions against him, and being a habitual
offender, shall be liable for continuance of entry
of his name in the surveillance register, while
declaring him as a history-sheeter; however, if
the convictions are 15 years or before, then the
history sheet/entry of his name in the
surveillance register will not fall in this criteria of
sustenance.
OR
(b) If a person is having more than ten cases
against him, in totality, irrespective of the result,
his name, at the discretion of the concerned
authority, entered in the surveillance register,
while declaring him as a history-sheeter, is
justified and deserves continuance; but if a
person is having more than ten cases and all of
them are 10 years old, then the history
sheet/entry of his name in the surveillance
register, will not fall in this criteria of
sustenance.”
25. In the opinion of this Court, the case of the petitioner now
deserves consideration in light of para 9.1(b) of Sanjay (supra)
too.
26. The writ petition is hence disposed of with a direction to the
Superintendent of Police, Sirohi to consider the case of the
petitioner in light of the above observations and pass appropriate
orders in accordance with law regarding the continuance/closure of
his history sheet.
(Uploaded on 11/06/2026 at 07:42:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/06/2026 at 12:31:28 AM)
(12 of 12)
[2026:RJ-JD:26784] [CRLW-1662/2026]
27. Pending applications(s), if any, also stands disposed of .
(REKHA BORANA),J
299-Arvind/Vij-
(Uploaded on 11/06/2026 at 07:42:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/06/2026 at 12:31:28 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)