IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 10.09.2025 Abhinav Bangia and others ......Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present: - Mr. Hemant Hans, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Ramendra Singh Chauhan, AAG, Haryana.

NAMIT KUMAR, J.

1. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 528 of BNSS seeking issuance of directions to the registry/computer branch of the District Courts, Ambala, authorized officer of the Haryana Police and other related portals to redact the names of the petitioners from e-courts portal/portal/websites in connection with FIR No.600 dated 23.11.2022 registered under Sections 406, 498-A, 506, 34 IPC at Police Station Baldev Nagar, Ambala.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner No.1-Abhinav Bangia is a technology entrepreneur and has been running his cybersecurity company, namely, Com Olho since 2019. Petitioners No.2 and 3 are mother and father, respectively of petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.1 was married on 30.10.2020 to Ashima Malhotra. Due to matrimonial discord between petitioner No.1 and Ashima Malhotra, petitioners were falsely implicated in FIR No.600 dated 23.11.2022 under Sections 406, 498-A, 506, 34 IPC at Police Station Baldev Nagar, District Ambala, by Ashima Malhotra. Ultimately, compromise was arrived at between the parties and petitioners by way of CRM-M-28264 of 2023 (Abhinav Bangia and others v. State of Haryana and another) approached this Court for quashing of the said FIR and vide order dated 06.11.2023 (Annexure P- 4), this Court on the basis of settlement between the parties, quashed all the proceedings arising out of the FIR. He further submits that despite knowing the factum that compromise had already been arrived at between the parties, investigating agency presented challan against the petitioners on 30.10.2023 and registration number of challan along with the names of the petitioners is reflecting on e-Courts portal of District Court, Ambala. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner No.1 is a reputed corporate professional and has been working at highest levels. He has to sign agreements with other companies but due to availability of his name on e-courts portal it is becoming difficult for him to pursue the business engagements. He further submitted that appearance of the names of the petitioners on website/e-courts/other portals besides being stigmatic is also adversely affecting their personal life and career and future prospects of petitioner No.1. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy and another Vs. Union of India and others, (2017) 10 SCC 1, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that every individual is having a fundamental right to privacy and observed as follows:-

“463. An individual has a right to protect his reputation from being unfairly harmed and such protection of eputation needs to exist not only against falsehood but also certain truths. It cannot be said that a more accurate judgment about people can be facilitated by knowing private details about their lives people judge us badly, they judge us in haste, they judge out of context, they judge without hearing the whole story and they judge with hypocrisy. Privacy lets people protect themselves from these troublesome judgments.

XXXX XXXX XXXX

472. The technology results almost in a sort of a permanent storage in some way or the other making it difficult to begin life again giving up past mistakes. People are not static; they change and grow through their lives. They evolve. They make mistakes. But they are entitled to reinvent themselves and reform and correct their mistakes. It is privacy which nurtures this ability and removes the shackles of unadvisable things which may have been done in the past.

473. Children around the world create perpetual digital footprints on social network w