Two men created fake email ID in someone else's name to complain in public but court stays their FIR on identity theft

Allahabad High Court has stayed an FIR against two men accused of creating an email ID in another person's name and using it to send fake complaints to several people, including the Lokayukta, ruling that this act does not, on a preliminary reading, amount to identity theft.

A division bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava held that Section 66-C of the Information Technology Act, which deals with identity theft, does not cover the creation of an email ID in someone else's name, since the provision specifically lists electronic signatures, passwords and unique identification features, not email IDs.

What the FIR alleged


According to the court's 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.

Why the accused challenged the case

The two men approached the High Court against 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 filed by the aggrieved person rather than through a police FIR, according to TOI.

They also challenged the identity theft charge, contending that creating an email ID in another person's name did not amount to identity theft, since Section 66-C specifically deals with the use of an electronic signature, password or unique identification feature belonging to someone else.

What the court said about the missing word

The bench examined the wording of Section 66-C closely and noted that the provision refers only to an electronic signature, password or unique identification feature, and does not mention an email ID at all.

"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 observed, according to TOI.

FIR stayed until further orders

The court concluded that a prima facie case for interference with the FIR had been made out, and stayed it pending further orders.

"Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, prima 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," the order stated, TOI reported.

On the defamation charge, the petitioners had relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Subramanian Swamy v Union of India to argue that criminal defamation proceedings must be initiated through a complaint by the aggrieved person, not through an FIR.

The order was passed on September 1, 2026. The case remains open for further hearing, and the court's view at this stage is a preliminary one rather than a final verdict.

What the two provisions cover

Section 356(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita deals with criminal defamation, and provides for punishment of a person who defames another with imprisonment up to two years, a fine, community service, or a combination of these.

Section 66-C of the Information Technology Act deals with identity theft, and punishes anyone who fraudulently or dishonestly uses another person's electronic signature, password or other unique identification feature, with imprisonment up to three years and a fine up to Rs 1 lakh.

(With TOI inputs)