Creating Email ID in Another's Name Not Identity Theft: Allahabad High Court Stays FIR

The Allahabad High Court has stayed an FIR against two individuals accused of creating an email ID in another person's name, ruling that the act does not prima facie constitute identity theft under Section 66-C of the Information Technology Act. The bench also noted that criminal defamation charges under Section 356(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita cannot be initiated through an FIR but require a complaint by the aggrieved person.

Fake Complaints Alleged

The FIR, registered on July 23, 2026 at Aaspur Devsara police station in Pratapgarh, alleged that the petitioners – Krishna Kant Pandey and another – had created an email ID in the name of a third person and used it to send fake complaints to various authorities, including the Lok Ayukta. The charges were under Section 356(2) BNS (criminal defamation) and Section 66-C of the IT Act (identity theft).

Petitioners' Challenge: No Offence Made Out

Appearing for the petitioners, advocates Anuj Dayal and Ankit Kumar Trivedi argued that merely creating an email ID in another person's name does not amount to using that person's " electronic signature , password , or any other unique identification feature " as required under Section 66-C. They pointed out that there is no bar on one individual creating an email ID in the name of another.

On the defamation charge, the petitioners relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India , arguing that criminal defamation proceedings must be initiated through a complaint by the aggrieved person, not through an FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC.

State's Counter: Unique Identification Feature

Counsel for respondent no.4, Sumit Kumar Ojha, and State counsel Ashish Gautam argued that the petitioners knowingly created an email ID in the name of a specific individual and used it to send fake messages, including to the Lok Ayukta. They contended that this conduct amounted to using the "unique identification feature" of a third person, falling within the ambit of Section 66-C.

Court: Legislature Did Not Include 'E-Mail ID'

The division bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava found the state's argument " prima facie fallacious and misconceived." The court observed that Section 66-C specifically uses the words " electronic signature ", " password ", or " unique identification feature " but does not mention " e-mail ID ."

"Once the legislature in its wisdom has used the words ' electronic signature ', ' password ' or ' unique identification feature ' under Section 66-C of the Act, 2008 and the legislature in its wisdom has not used the words ' e-mail ID ', consequently, prima facie it cannot be said that any offence under Section 66-C of the Act, 2008 has also been committed by the petitioners," the bench stated.

Key Observations

The court further noted: "Creation of an e-mail ID would neither be the use of an electronic signature nor a password nor any unique identification, in as much as, there is no bar that an e-mail ID cannot be created in the name of a particular individual by any other individual."

Decision: FIR Stayed

Finding a prima facie case for interference, the court stayed the impugned FIR until further orders and directed that no action shall be taken against the petitioners in pursuance of the FIR. The court granted four weeks to the respondents to file counter affidavits, with two weeks thereafter for the petitioners' rejoinder. The matter will be listed before the appropriate bench for further hearing.

The ruling clarifies that creating an email ID in another's name does not, by itself, attract Section 66-C of the IT Act, reinforcing the principle that statutory language must be strictly construed in criminal matters.