Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Joe Abraham Mathews vs Indian Kanoon on 22 April, 2024

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                                              -1-
                                                         NC: 2024:KHC:15952
                                                        WP No. 9655 of 2024




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                           DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024

                                            BEFORE
                          THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA


                           WRIT PETITION NO. 9655 OF 2024 (GM-RES)


                   BETWEEN:


                         JOE ABRAHAM MATHEWS
                         @ MATHEWS THAZHAT PRASAD
                         S/O T M PRASAD
                         AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
                         R/AT NO.160,
                         ESTEEM APARTMENTS
                         NO.301, 6TH CROSS
                         ST BED LAYOUT,
                         KORAMANGALA
                         BANGALORE - 560034

                                                               ...PETITIONER
Digitally signed   (BY SRI. SAKET BISANI, ADVOCATE)
by NAGAVENI
Location:
HIGH COURT         AND:
OF
KARNATAKA
                   1.    INDIAN KANOON
                         REP. BY PROPRIETOR: SUSHANT SINHA
                         NO.724, 1ST FLOOR
                         9TH CROSS,
                         10TH MAIN ROAD
                         INDIRANAGAR
                         BANGALORE - 560038
                         WEBMASTER @ INDIANKANOON.COM
                         PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN
                             -2-
                                            NC: 2024:KHC:15952
                                       WP No. 9655 of 2024




2.   BOOMLIVE
     OUTCUE MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
     311, PARVATHI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
     SUN MILL COMPOUND, LOWER PAREL
     MUMBAI - 400013, MAHARASHTRA, INDIA
     GRIEVANCE @ BOOMLIVE.IN
     REP BY DIYVA CHANDRA
     PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY

3.   NEW INDIAN EXPRESS
     EXPRESS NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED
     EXPRESS GARDENS, 29, SECOND MAIN ROAD
     AMBATTUR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
     CHENNAI - 600058
     TAMIL NADU
     CONTACT NO: 044-23457601-08
     EXTN: 525
     EMAIL: [email protected]
     REP BY EXECUTIVE EDITOR
     RAJESH KUMAR R
     PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY

4.   AIRONLINE
     ALL INDIA REPORTER PVT. LTD.
     CONGRESS NAGAR, NAGPUR - 440012
     PHONE: +91 830005660
     E-MAIL: [email protected]
     PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY
     RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4
     REGISTERED UNDER 1956
                                               ...RESPONDENTS

     THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THIS
HONBLE HIGH COURTS REGISTRY, TO REMOVE/SEAL THE
NAME OF PETITIONER FROM THE CASE TITLED AS JOE
ABRAHAM MATHEWS V. STATE BY ELECTRONIC CITY POLICE
STATION, IN CRL.P NO.4799/2022 VIDE JUDGEMENT DTD
12.08.2022 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                 -3-
                                                NC: 2024:KHC:15952
                                              WP No. 9655 of 2024




                              ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer:

a. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, directing this Hon'ble High Courts registry, to remove / seal the name of Petitioner from the case titled as Joe Abraham Mathews v. State by Electronic City Police Station, in Crl.P.No.4799 of 2022 vide Judgement dated 12-Aug-2022 as per ANNEXURE-A. b. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, to the Respondents to mask / seal the name of the Petitioner from their website and various other third parties.
c. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, directing the online court records and Third-party legal records website (intermediaries) to seal / remove the name of the Petitioner from their website.
d. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, to seal the name of the Petitioner even from the present petition. e. Pass such other writ or order or direction which this Hon'ble court deems necessary for safeguarding Petitioner's dignity including availing Petitioner the Right to be Forgotten in the interest of Justice and equity."

2. The petitioner gets embroiled in an alleged affair with the complainant and when that is broken it becomes a Crime for offences punishable under Section 376, 420 and 406 of the IPC. This Court, in terms of its order dated 15.07.2022 -4- NC: 2024:KHC:15952 WP No. 9655 of 2024 in Crl.P.No.4799/2022 quashed the proceedings against the petitioner by observing that the complainant was in the habit of registering the cases of rape against several men one of the victim was the petitioner. The order has become final. The petitioner is now before this Court seeking a direction to the respondent - Indian Kanoon to mask the name of the petitioner in its database or its achives, as the case would be. Plethora of mails communicated by the petitioner has all gone unheeded and therefore, the petitioner is before this Court, in the subject petition.

3. The order passed by this Court on 15.07.2022 was unequivocal that it was an abuse of process of the law by the complainant, who dragged the petitioner into the web of crime.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in Indian Kanoon, the respondent has also has policy of masking the name and has produced the said policy.

5. In the light of the policy being in place without driving the petitioner to this Court, Indian Kanoon and others -5- NC: 2024:KHC:15952 WP No. 9655 of 2024 ought to have acted upon the mails communicated, as the petitioner being an accused is effaced long ago and is entitled to live in dignity.

6. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to direct all the respondents by issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus to mask the name / details of the petitioner in all database or archive as the case would be, in terms of its policy, without brooking any further delay.

7. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE KG List No.: 2 Sl No.: 35