Karnataka High Court
Xxxxxxxx vs The Registrar General on 24 March, 2022
Author: M. Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.22994 OF 2021 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
XXXXXXXX
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
D/O XXXXXXXX
R/A FLAT NO.101,
HAVELOCK FERNDALE,
NO.55, 10TH CROSS
KANAKANAGAR, R T NAGAR POST
BENGALURU - 560 032.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI VIKAS M., ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))
AND:
1. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY WOMEN POLICE STATION,
EAST RANGE BANGALORE CITY,
REPRESENTED BY HCGP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE INDIAN KANOON
PROPRIETOR SUSHANT SINHA,
OFFICE ADDRESS AT
2
NO.724, 1ST FLOOR, 9TH CROSS,
10TH MAIN ROAD,
INDIRANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 038.
4. WWW.LAWYERSERVICES.IN
FOUNDER. PARIKSHIT A. ADVANI,
OFFICE ADDRESS AT 7E,
2ND FLOOR, OLD ORIENTAL BUILDING,
OPPOSITE HIGH COURT,
FORT, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA - 400 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RICAB CHAND, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
R1 TO R3 ARE SERVED))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH 482 OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R1 TO REMOVE/MASK THE NAME AND
ADDRESS OF THE PETITIONER, IN THE DIGITAL RECORDS
MAINTAINED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, IN CRL.P.NO.5685 OF
2020 AS INDICATED IN THE RANK OF R2 IN THE ORDER DATED
21.12.2020 PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT AND ALSO
REMOVE/MASK THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER AT PARA NO.3
AND PARA NO.4 OF THE SAID ORDER, TO THE EXTENT OF THE
SAME NOT BEING VISIBLE FOR THE SEARCH ENGINE INCLUDING
IN HIGH COURT WEBSITE, GOOGLE OR OTHER SEARCH ENGINES
VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner, in substance, seeks name of the petitioner to be masked in the database of the respondents. 3
2. Heard Sri.Vikas.M., learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.Ricab Chand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.
3. Petitioner was respondent No.2 in Crl.P.No.5685/2020 and on settlement being arrived at, in the said proceeding, on account of a mutual divorce therein, this Court by order dated 21.12.2020 quashed the entire criminal proceeding against one Mohsin Salam, petitioner No.1 in Crl.P.No.5685/2020. Petitioner comes across her name still being figured as wife of Mohsin Salam despite closure of the proceedings by seeking mutual divorce. The name was found in the databases of this Court, Indian Kanoon and lawyerservices.in. Seeking a direction to mask the name of the petitioner, the present petition is preferred.
4. This Court has redressed the grievance of the petitioner by masking the name. The 4th respondent lawyerservices.in have withdrawn the judgment from their database. It is the Indian Kanoon that has not carried out the masking as is 4 requested. It is in that light, the petitioner has preferred the subject petition.
5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was the 2nd respondent in Crl.P.No.5685/2020 and that having been terminated on account of divorce between one Mohsin Salaam and the petitioner herein on 21.12.2020, the name of the petitioner should be deleted or masked from display, if the judgment has to be kept in the database of Indian Kanoon, as it would affect the personal right of the petitioner, since the petitioner has remarried and does not want her name to be shown as wife of Mohsin Salam.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The 3rd respondent/Indian Kanoon shall mask the name of the petitioner in Crl.P.No.5685/2020, if the 5 same has to remain in the database of Indian Kanoon.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkp CT:MJ