'Remnants Should Not Haunt', Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Registry To Remove Man's Name From Records As FIR Against Him Was Quashed

"When a person has been exonerated by the Court of his guilt, the remnants of such charge should not be allowed to haunt any such person", said the Punjab & Haryana High Court while directing its Registry to redact the name of a man who was accused in a FIR, which was later quashed.

The petitioner stated that he is a respectable man and despite clearing the interviews for employment in multinational companies, he didn't receive the offer letter because his name was available on e-courts portal as an accused in a criminal case.

Justice N.S. Shekhawat observed that, "This would be contrary to individual's right to privacy, which includes the right to be forgotten and right to live with dignity, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India."

The Court directed the Registry as well as all concerned officials of District Gurugram to remove the name of the petitioner from the records of all the proceedings, arising out of FIR under Sections 384/419 of IPC and Sections 66-C and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2008 and its search results.

It further directed the Registries of both the Courts to show the name of the petitioner as “ABCD”.

While directing the petitioner to approach other platforms and search engines to mask his name, the Court said, "Whenever, the petitioner applies or approaches of any of the social media or search engine, it is expected that they would also respect the “right to privacy” and “right to be forgotten” of the petitioner and shall remove any other material, which may be there on the record, pertaining to the Court proceedings of FIR..."

The Court was hearing a plea under Section 528 of BNSS to issue directions to the Registry/Computer Branch of the High Court as well as District Court Gurugram to redact the name of the petitioner from the e-courts portal, in connection with FIR No. 100 dated 10.04.2024 under Sections 384/419 of IPC and Sections 66-C and 67 of the Information Technology Act.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is a reputed corporate professional having total experience spanning over 20 years in India and USA. He had studied from esteemed educational institutions including Jawahar Lal Nehru University and Delhi University.

The petitioner was falsely involved in the FIR and the total amount in dispute was Rs. 3,000, which was later quashed.

It was submitted that the petitioner is a reputed corporate professional and in order to survive, the petitioner is exploring the job vacancies and is also looking forward to work with international companies and firms for his professional growth. However, due to the availability of his name on e-courts portal, it is becoming impossible for the petitioner to get a job in India or abroad.

After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that no doubt, the FIR was ordered to be registered against the petitioner, however, under Sections 384/419 of IPC and Sections 66-C and 67 of the Information Technology Act, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, were ordered to be quashed by the High Court.

Justice Shekhwat highlighted that no proceedings arising out of the FIR  are pending before any Court anywhere.

In light of the above, the plea was allowed.

Mr. Abhinav Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Sheenu Sura, DAG, Haryana.

Title: ABCD v. State of Haryana

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 105

Click here to read/download the order