Conviction Not Mandatory To Open History Sheet Against 'Habitual Offender' Under Police Rules: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court has held that a prior conviction is not a mandatory prerequisite for opening or reopening a history sheet under the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965, if the police have reasonable grounds to believe that a person is habitually addicted to crime. [2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 245]

The bench of Justice Rekha Borana clarified that the expression "habitual offender" under the Police Rules cannot be imported from the Rajasthan Habitual Offenders Act, 1953, which requires three convictions, as the Rules themselves permit opening a history sheet even against a person who has not been convicted.

For context, a petition was filed by a person against whom a history sheet was opened in 1986 based on his involvement in 6 criminal cases. After all the matters stood compromised and the petitioner was acquitted, the history sheet was put in the silent bag.

Thereafter, 2 subsequent FIRs were lodged against the petitioner in 2012, based on which the history sheet was reopened against him. This was challenged before the Court.

The petitioner argued that despite being acquitted/discharged in both the matters, the State was regularly issuing preventing summons every 6 months to the petitioner, and the petitioner was required to execute a bond for the same which was causing mental harassment to him.

It was further submitted that the petitioner had reformed and was involved in multiple social welfare activities. Further, the petitioner argued that since he was never convicted, he could not be termed as a habitual offender and thus no history sheet could be opened against him.

On the contrary, the State argued that the petitioner was involved in the riots that took place in Kishanganj in 2012. Further, the term habitual offender could not be construed in a narrow sense and included a person who was persistently involved in criminal activities. Hence, a regular surveillance of such person was essential.

After hearing the contentions, the Court held that definition of habitual offender as under the Act, could not be applied to Rule 4.4(3)(b) of the Rules that specifically provided that names of such persons could be entered who were reasonably believed to be habitual offenders whether they were convicted or not.

“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.”

It was held that history sheet could be opened of any person who was reasonably believed to be habitually addicted to crime or was an aider/abettor of such person. In this light, it was held that reopening of history sheet by the police could not be defaulted with.

At the same time, the Court highlighted petitioner's acquittal/discharge in the subsequent two FIRs in 2019, and it was observed that since 2012 there had been no further involvement of the petitioner in any crime.

The Court referred to Rule 4.12(1) of the Rules which provided that history sheet of a person who was no longer addicted to crime shall be transferred to his personal file. Further, Rule 4.13(4) of the Rules provided that if a person was on good behaviour continuously for 7 years, his personal filed may be ordered to be destructed.

In this background, the Court opined that considering his non-involvement in any crime pursuant to 2012, the case required reconsideration.

Accordingly, the Superintendent of Police was directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate order regarding continuance/closure of his history sheet.

Title: Iqbal Khan v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 245

Click Here To Read/Download Order