Mere involvement in FIRs not enough to classify a person as History-Sheeter: Jammu and Kashmir High Court

The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh recently ruled that a person cannot be classified as a 'history sheeter' only on account of several first information reports (FIRs) having been registered against him in the past [Bashir-Ud-Din v. Union Territory of J&K]..Justice MA Chowdhary explained that the preparation of a history sheet is not expected to be a mechanical exercise and there should be reasonable information that the person is “habitually addicted” to committing crimes as well as information regarding whether he was convicted of the crimes alleged, etc. ."The discretion of the authorities has to be exercised, according to the rules of reason and justice and not according to private opinion, according to law and not humour. It is to be not arbitrarily vague, fanciful, but legal and regular and it must be exercised within the limit to which an honest man competent to discharge of his office or to confine himself," the Court added. The Court was hearing a plea challenging the 'Verification of Character and Antecedents Certificate' issued by a Sub-Divisional Police officer at Mahore, by which the petitioner was termed as a history sheeter..The Court found that a history sheet was opened by the local police against a person (petitioner) "just on the basis of registration of five cases for a period of over eight years.".The judge set aside the history sheet after opining that it did not appear to be in line with the relevant police rules.."The opening of the history sheet against sheet against the petitioner offends his fundamental right enshrined in Article 21 of the constitution of India," the Court held. .The petitioner moved the Court alleging that various politically-motivated, imaginary, baseless and manipulated cases were registered against him. He also pointed out that he was acquitted in four out of the five cases filed against him. The remaining case was also dropped at the stage of investigation, he added. Therefore, the counsel for the petitioner argued that the police cannot describe him a 'history sheeter' and keep him under surveillance..The government authorities including the police said that the history sheet was opened in line with rule 703 of the Police Rules, 1960.The Court, however, disagreed with the authorities' stance. "Having regard to five cases having been registered against the petitioner from the year 2009 to 2018, out of which four cases resulted into his acquittal and one of the case was concluded as not proved during investigation, the petitioner cannot be said to be addicted to certain patterns of crime or a habitual offender," the Court said. .The judge also emphasised that the power to open history sheets against individuals must be exercised with caution and responsibility since it has grave consequences. "Branding a person as a history sheeted has a tainted image in the society as compared to others ... Needless to say that every person wants to live with dignity and he/she cannot be condemned arbitrarily. It is also to be borne in mind that estrangement of the members of the history sheeted person in social gathering etc., is not uncommon in order in our society. Therefore, opening or retention of history sheets, which interferes with the right of privacy of a person, should be done strictly, adhering to parameters inbuilt in the police rules, keeping in mind the object sought to be achieved," the Court said. .The Court proceeded to allow the petitioner's challenge and his history sheet was ordered to be removed from the record of the concerned police station..Senior Advocate CM Koul along with advocate AR Bhat represented the petitioner. Government advocate Mohd Irfan Inqlabi represented the government and police authorities. .[Read Judgment]