SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 51853

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:

XXXXXX

XXXXXX

XXXXXX

XXXXXX

XXXXXX

... 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

* Re- typed and re-placed page No.1 vide chamber order dated 07.07.2022.

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:

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top