NEWDELHI: The Allahabad high court has stayed an FIR against two people accused of creating an email ID in another person’s name and using it to send fake complaints, observing that merely creating an email ID in someone else’s name does not, prima facie, amount to identity theft under Section 66-C of the Information Technology Act. The order was passed on September 1, 2026.Why did the accused challenge the FIR?According to the court order, the FIR was registered on July 23, 2026, at Aaspur Devsara police station in Pratapgarh under Section 356(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 66-C of the Information Technology Act.The petitioners were accused of creating an email ID in the name of another person and using it to send fake complaints to various people, including the Lokayukta.They challenged the FIR, arguing that Section 356(2) of the BNS deals with criminal defamation and that such a case has to be initiated through a complaint by the aggrieved person, rather than through an FIR.The petitioners also challenged the use of Section 66-C, which deals with punishment for identity theft.The petitioners argued that creating an email ID in another person’s name did not amount to identity theft because Section 66-C specifically deals with the use of an electronic signature, password or unique identification feature of another person.Why did the high court question the identity theft charge?A division bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava examined whether merely creating an email ID in another person’s name could fall within these categories. The bench observed:The bench then considered the wording of Section 66-C and noted that the provision specifically refers to an electronic signature, password or unique identification feature, but does not mention an email ID.“Prima facie, the argument of Shri Ojha is found to be fallacious and misconceived, inasmuch as 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 said.The bench concluded that, in view of its discussion, there was a prima facie case for interference with the FIR. It therefore stayed the FIR and barred further action against the petitioners under it.“Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, primia facie a case for interference is made out. As such until further orders, the impugned FIR dated 23.07.2026 bearing FIR/Case Crime No. 0193 of 2026, under Section 356(2) of BNS and Section 66-C of Information Technology (Amendment)Act, 2008, lodged at Police Station Aaspur Devsara, District Pratapgarh shall remain stayed. Further, no action shall be taken against the petitioners by the authorities in pursuance of the impugned FIR,” it further added.The court also considered the petitioners’ argument regarding criminal defamation. They had relied on the Supreme Court‘s judgment in Subramanian Swamy v Union of India, arguing that criminal defamation proceedings have to be initiated through a complaint by the aggrieved person rather than through an FIR.passed the order on September 1, 2026. The FIR dated July 23, 2026, was stayed until further orders and the authorities were directed not to take action against the petitioners in pursuance of itWhat do these provisions deal with?Section 356(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS): This provision deals with criminal defamation. It provides punishment for a person who defames another, with imprisonment of up to two years, a fine, both, or community service.Section 66-C of the Information Technology Act: This provision deals with identity theft. It punishes anyone who fraudulently or dishonestly uses another person’s electronic signature, password or other unique identification feature, with imprisonment of up to three years and a fine of up to Rs 1 lakh.
