IBC Moratorium | Criminal Court Cannot Direct Disbursal Of Corporate Debtor's Assets To Complainant Pending CIRP: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Failure To Implead Company As Accused Renders Complaint Fatally Defective; Section 319 CrPC Cannot Be Used To Cure Such Fundamental Defect: Supreme Court 'Last Seen Theory' Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Acquits Man In Murder Case 'Every Lawyer Has A Duty To Act Decently': Supreme Court Modifies Suspension Of Advocate For Misconduct In Court Premises Mere Declaration Of 'Transitional Area' Under Article 243-Q(1)(a) Of Constitution Does Not Automatically Convert Rural Area Into Urban Area: Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Externment Order, Terms Non-Compliance With Natural Justice A "Travesty Of Constitutional Guarantees" 'Certiorari Is Not Appellate': Supreme Court Rejects Plea In Decades-Old Co-operative Society Membership Dispute Victim Must Authorize Settlement: Supreme Court Rules Informants Cannot Quash Criminal Cases Without Real Victim's Consent State Cannot Pick And Choose: Supreme Court Restores Right To Retrospective Regularisation For Daily Wage Employees Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment of Plaint After Commencement Of Trial Cannot Be Allowed Without Proving Due Diligence: Supreme Court Discrepancy Between Ocular Testimony And Medical Evidence Creates Reasonable Doubt: Supreme Court Order VI Rule 17 & Order VIII Rule 6A CPC | Counter Claim Cannot Be Permitted After Trial Concludes When Party Fails To Pay Court Fees Initially: Supreme Court Nominee Holds Insurance Proceeds In Trust For Legal Heirs; Supreme Court Directs Equitable Distribution Pending Succession Proceedings PC Act | Court Must Impose Statutory Minimum Imprisonment Upon Conviction Under Sections 7 And 13(2): Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Official Caught In Factional Crossfire Retaliatory Counterblasts Cannot Be Used As Weapons Of Harassment: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Complaint Over Civil Land Dispute Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Court Must Defer Question Of Ad-Valorem Court Fee To Evidence When Possession Status Is Disputed: Supreme Court Minor Shortfall In Earnest Money Deposit Does Not Vitiate Auction Sale If It Causes No Prejudice: Supreme Court 'Flimsy And Untenable': Supreme Court Cancels Bail Of Accused In Gruesome 'Petrol-Burning' Murder Case Parity Is Not A Mechanical Mathematical Formula: Supreme Court Rejects Bail Plea Of Murder Accused Article 142 Constitution of India | Supreme Court May Protect Retiral Benefits Of Employees Whose Caste Certificates Are Invalidated In Exceptional Cases Omission Of CGST Rule 96(10) Applies To All Pending Proceedings: Supreme Court Mere Marking Does Not Prove Contents: Supreme Court Clarifies Evidence Law In Testamentary Proceedings Arbitral Tribunal Under Section 16 Of A&C Act Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Determine Arbitrability Of Claims Including Excepted Matters: Supreme Court Arbitration Agreement Can Be Incorporated Into A Personal Guarantee Through A Composite Transaction: Supreme Court

Opening of a history sheet of a person can certainly be said to affect one’s image and reputation in society: JK High Court

18 September 2024 1:56 PM

By: sayum


High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu delivered a significant ruling in the case of Nagar Singh v. Union Territory of J&K & Others. The court ordered the removal and closure of the petitioner's history sheet from the Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, deeming the continued surveillance to be a violation of legal procedures and personal rights.

Nagar Singh, a 72-year-old businessman from Jammu, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He sought removal of his name from the surveillance register and deletion of his history sheet at the Gandhi Nagar Police Station. Singh had been previously implicated in several criminal cases, including FIR No. 247/2009 and FIR No. 107/2006. However, he was acquitted in both cases. Despite these acquittals, the police maintained his history sheet and entered his name in the surveillance register, prompting him to seek judicial intervention.

The key legal question was whether the police had lawfully maintained the petitioner's history sheet under the Jammu and Kashmir Police Rules, 1960. Singh argued that his inclusion in the history sheet violated Rules 698 to 704 of these rules, as he had not been convicted thrice or more, a requirement under Rule 698. The petitioner also claimed that his rights to privacy and dignity had been infringed upon due to the arbitrary exercise of police power.

The court observed that while the police have a duty to prevent crime and maintain public peace, this duty must be exercised judiciously and in accordance with the law. The court emphasized that surveillance and history sheet entries require credible and cogent material indicating that the person is habitually addicted to crime.

Justice Javed Iqbal Wani noted that the maintenance of the history sheet showed "complete non-application of mind on the part of the respondents." The court scrutinized the petitioner's history sheet and found that his acquittals were not recorded, suggesting a mechanical and routine approach by the police. It was emphasized that the opening of a history sheet affects an individual's image and reputation, thereby infringing upon their right to respect for private and family life.

Citing the Supreme Court case of Dhanji Ram Sharma v. Superintendent of Police North District Delhi Police (AIR 1966 SC 1766), the court reiterated that the power to open a history sheet must be exercised based on credible material and reasonable grounds. The court ruled that mere belief is insufficient for such action.

The High Court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to remove and close Nagar Singh's history sheet, stating that the police must ensure compliance with rules and proper application of mind when maintaining surveillance registers and history sheets.

Date of Decision: September 11, 2024

Nagar Singh v. Union Territory of J&K & Others

Latest Legal News