Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5316 of 2018 Petitioner :- Mohammad Shaffan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 03 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sharique Ahmed Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Rizwan Ahmed, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Sharique Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vikas Sahai, learned AGA for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.
The present writ petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the history sheet No. 2441/ A, direct the respondent police authorities not to keep surveillance in pursuance to the aforesaid history-sheet, direct the respondent authorities to pass an appropriate order on the petitioner's application dated 09.02.2018 and further prayed to direct not to take any coercive action till the disposal of application dated 9.02.2018.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he made a representation before the S.S.P., Kanpur Nagar, as it appears from the representation dated 09.02.2018 and copy of the same has been annexed on page No.82.
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned A.G.A.
It would appear from the record that the police has opened history sheet of the petitioner on the basis of three cases registered against him mentioned in para no. 9.
The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the history sheet of Class A can be opened when it has been established on the basis of suspicion or conviction that a suspect is an active and prominent member of a gang of dacoits. It is further argued that mere suspects should not be starred until established that one has become dangerous and confirmed criminal and is unlikely to reform. The next contention is that the case of the petitioner no. 1 is not covered by paragraph 228 of the U.P. Police Regulations.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has argued that the representation of the petitioner is already pending before the respondent no.3, hence direction be issued to the respondent no.3 for deciding the representation of the petitioner expeditiously.
We are also of the view that the interest of justice would be best served if the matter is relegated to the police authority to take appropriate decision in the matter.
In view of the above, it is directed that the representation moved by the petitioner before the respondent no.3 which is pending, shall be decided within the period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the respondents.
The petition stands disposed of.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 31.5.2018 A. Mandhani