ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to the Registry of this Court to remove the name of the petitioner from the digital records maintained in Criminal Petition No.8172 of 2021 and not to reflect the name of the petitioner in relation to Criminal Petition No.8172 of 2021.

2. Heard Smt. Abhinaya K, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. B.V. Vidyulatha, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri. Kiran Kumar, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.2.

3. Sans details, facts in brief, are as follows:-

On 28-09-2021, one Sri. xxxx registers a complaint before the Station House Officer of S.S. Puram Police Station, Tumkur alleging, that when his daughter xxxxxx xxxxxxxx, aged about 16 years was attending online classes from home, the petitioner, a Page No.3 is retyped and replaced vide Chamber order dated 12.03.2024.

tenant in the house of one Gangadaraiah abutting the house of the complainant, had developed contact with his daughter which he had noticed from the room of his house. It is alleged that he had noticed that the petitioner began to make gestures from his window, to the window of the daughter of the complainant, when she was attending online classes. It is the complaint averment that the father checks the mobile phone of his daughter without her knowledge and discovered that the petitioner was sending messages on whats app which were sexually intimidating and which were in the nature of trying to force her to have sexual intercourse with him. Plethora of texts had been exchanged between his daughter and the petitioner. This complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.105 of 2021 for offences punishable under Sections 354A and 354B of the IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act. Investigation commenced against the petitioner after registration of crime.

4. The Police conduct a detailed investigation and file a ‘B’

report observing that it was a false case registered against the petitioner. By then, the petitioner had filed Criminal Petition No.8172 of 2021 before this Court. In view of filing of the ‘B’

report, this Court disposed the petition in terms of its order dated 02-02-2022. After the said order being passed by this Court, the concerned Court, after hearing the parties, accepted the ‘B’ report and discharged the accused i.e., the petitioner.

5. The issue in the lis does not concern merit of the crime.

The petitioner is knocking at the doors of this Court, on the ground that when the name of the petitioner is clicked on any search engine, it reveals him to be an accused in the aforesaid crime and petitioner in Criminal Petition No.8172 of 2021. It is, therefore, the petitioner seeks masking of his name in the digital records of this Court.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the ‘B’ report depicts that it was a false case, as the daughter of the complainant and the petitioner were close friends and they had exchanged several messages. It was not one sided, but the daughter had also exchanged messages. Therefore, the Police after investigation filed a ‘B’ report, stating it to be a false case and the complainant did not contest the ‘B’

report. Thereafter, the concerned Court also closes the case accepting the ‘B’ report and discharges the petitioner. She would submit that the digital records still show him as an accused. On account of the name being displayed in the website of the High Court, he is not getting any job and his brothers also are not getting any job, as the moment search is done, it would show that the petitioner was an accused. Explanation that he is discharged comes about later. But, by then all his job offers vanish. She would contend, that if the charge sheet had been filed or there was conviction, it would have been a different circumstance. The petitioner is now left without any blame. The digital records depict him to be an accused, which has placed him worse than being an accused. She would subm