ORDER
1. The petitioner has come up with a prayer to command the Respondents to close History-Sheet No. 58-A, dated 31-5-1979, Police Station Kairana, District Muzaffar Nagar opened by them against him.
2. The petitioner claims as follows:-
He is a political and social worker. He was elected as the president of the Kairana Block Congress (I). In the year 1986 this History-sheet was opened against him on the ground that he was involved in Crime Case No. 5 of 1974, under Section 392, I.P.C. The aforesaid crime case gave rise to Crime Case No. 338 of 1978 which resulted in his acquittal vide judgment dated 23-7-1979 of 1st Additional Munsif Magistrate, Saharanpur, as contained in Annexure 1. He filed Writ Petition No. 9457 of 1986 before this Court for questioning the History Sheet, which was dismissed vide order dated 18-8-1987 on the ground that there are no allegations in the writ petition that he is awakened by the police in night or any surveillance is kept on him. On account of continuous interference with his political and social activity by the police he moved this Court by filing another Writ Petition No. 16173 of 1987 with a prayer to quash the history-sheet in question. This writ petition was also dismissed vide order dated 5-9-1991 (as contained in Annexure 2) holding that no error was committed in instructing him by the police to inform the police station whenever he leaves his house and there is no interference by the police in his activities. As his reputation in the town and neighbouring villages has been marred and in the eye of the police and the general public he is now considered to be a criminal, thus it will be expedient in the interest of justice that the History-sheet in question, which was opened in the year 1979, now be directed to be closed.
3. Vide orders dated 29-3-1995 and 24-4-1995 adjournments were granted by this Court to the learned counsel for the State to file counter-affidavit. Unfortunately no counter-affidavit has been filed till date. Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned A.G.A. sought grant of yet another opportunity to file a counter-affidavit but having regard to the nature of the order which we propose to pass we do not consider expedient to adjourn this writ petition which has remained pending in this Court for more than four years by now.
4. Sri V.B.L. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that in view of the ratio laid down in a Division Bench decision of this Court in Rajesh Kumar v. State of U.P. 1999 (1) JIC 229 (All), the prayer of the petitioner is fit to be allowed.
5. Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned A.G.A., on the other hand, raised a preliminary objection that since twice the petitioner's writ petition was dismissed by this Court and no leave was granted to move this Court afresh he cannot move this Court for the third time by filing the instant writ petition. Thus, for this reason alone this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. In support of objection he relied upon two decisions of the Supreme Court in Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior AIR 1987 SC 88 and Avinash Nagra v. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (1997) 2 SCC 534.
6. True it is that the petitioner had moved earlier this Court unsuccessfully for quashing the History-sheet in question and in this view of the matter he cannot move this Court for quashing the said History-sheet. However, in this writ petition his prayer is not to quash it but to direct the Respondents to close it down. Thus, we cannot throw out this writ petition as contended by Sri Mehrotra, learned A.G.A.
7. Sri Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner after placing reliance on paragraphs 8 to 10 of the Division Bench judgment submitted that no order having been passed by the Superintendent of Police after lapse of 2 years the History-sheet be directed to be closed.
8. However, it is not the pleading of the petitioner that no special reason was assigned by the Superintendent of Police in regard to continuance of History-sheet. Thus, the relief claimed for by him cannot be granted.
9. This writ petition is, thus, dismissed but without there being any order as to cost.
10. Before parting, it is clarified that if the petitioner really feels that Regulation 231 has been breached then he may move the Superintendent' of Police concerned for closing of the history-sheet and it will be for the Superintendent of Police concerned to pass an appropriate order in that regard.
11. The office is directed to handover a copy of this order within two weeks to Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned A.G.A. for its intimation to the Superintendent of Police concerned.