$~103 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 06^th November, 2024 + CRL.M.C. 495/2019 ABC .....Petitioner Through: Mr. S.D. Salwan, Sr. Adv.

with Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, Mr. Sachin Chaudhary & Mr. Vinay Yadav, Advs.

versus STATE & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rajkumar, APP for the State.

Insp. Seema Singh, SPUWAC.

Mr. Ajay Verma with Mr. Vaishnav Kirti Singh, Advs. for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)

CRL.M.A. 33295/2024

1. By the present application, the petitioner seeks issuance of directions to the Registry to mask the name of the petitioner from the order and the pleadings that were filed before this Court in the present case including the order dated 10.05.2024.

2. This Court vide order dated 10.05.2024 disposed of the petition bearing CRL. M.C. 495/2019, and set aside the Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARMINDERCRL.M.C. 495/2019 Page 1 of 7 impugned judgment and order dated 23.01.2019. Consequently, the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in CC No. 1026/1/2015 directing registration of FIR against the petitioner was also set aside.

3. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing W.P. (C) No. 15145/2024 seeking directions to remove the case details, judgment, and URL of the judgment dated 10.05.2024 passed by this Court in CRL. M.C. 495/2019 from public access on their websites since all the criminal proceedings between the parties had already been quashed. The Writ Court, consequently, directed the petitioner to approach the concerned Court for appropriate directions for masking the details of the parties.

4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that irreparable prejudice will be caused to the petitioner, his social life and his career prospects if the petitioner’s name is indicated as a person involved in criminal case despite the fact that the case against the petitioner has ultimately been quashed by this Court.

5. He submits that the petitioner is entitled to protection under ‘right to privacy’ and the ‘right to be forgotten’ which have now been well defined and also recognised as a fundamental right. He relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Justice K S Puttaswamy and another v. Union of India and others : (2017) 10 SCC 1 to contend that the right to privacy incorporates the right to be forgotten.

6. He submits that the instant issue has attracted sufficient attention even overseas in the European Union which led to the Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARMINDERCRL.M.C. 495/2019 Page 2 of 7 framing of General Data Protection Regulation that governs the manner in which personal data can be collected, processed and erased.

7. He submits that citizens have a right to request that search engines that gather personal information remove links to private information when asked provided that such information is no longer relevant.

8. He submits that the petitioner is a young man, carrying out his profession. He further submits that uploading of the case details on websites besides being stigmatic is also adversely affecting his personal life, career and future prospects. He submits that the presence of case details on the internet gives an impression that the petitioner is involved in a criminal case. He consequently submits that the same acts as a deterrent and is hampering the career growth and employment opportunities of the petitioner.

9. Admittedly, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner were ultimately quashed by this Court vide order dated 10.05.2024. Since the proceedings against the petitioner have already been quashed, this Court finds merit in the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner.

10. The Hon’ble Apex Court while discussing the ambit of privacy and the need of informational privacy in Justice K S Puttaswamy and another v. Union of India and others (supra)

observed as under:

“623. An individual has a right to protect his reputation Signature Not Verified from being u