Allahabad High Court raps UP Police for blocking woman's phone number on husband's bogus complaint

The Allahabad High Court has ordered the cyber cell of Lucknow police to take immediate steps for the restoration of a mobile number belonging to a woman which was blocked following a complaint made by her husband..A Division Bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena said the police had blocked the number on the basis of a bogus complaint made by the husband due to a matrimonial discord between the couple. “A citizen cannot be wronged in this manner by a callous handling by the State Agencies,” the Court said..The wife had filed a writ petition seeking the restoration of her mobile number. The Court in March had asked the official in charge of the Cyber Cell in the Office of the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow, to explain why the number was blocked. On May 15, the Court said it was not satisfied with the reply filed by the police.“There is apparently a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and respondent no.5, and whatever kind of a complaint was there, is attributable to her husband. The stand taken in the personal affidavit of the In-charge, Cyber Cell, Police Commissionerate, Lucknow is very irresponsible. He has relied upon some order of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India regarding blocking, debiting, freezing data received through the Cyber Portal. These are orders, which are not meant to be misused,” the Court said. .The Court, therefore, issued notice to the State government and ordered the police to ensure the restoration of the number previously belonging to the woman. “The In-charge, Cyber Cell, Commissioner, Lucknow will take immediate steps for restoration of the petitioner's mobile number after getting in touch with the Telecom Service Provider/ Mobile Service Company concerned, which appears to be JIO Telecom Service Limited, and file his own affidavit after taking necessary steps within a week,” the Court ordered.The Court also directed the husband to show cause why he should not be asked to pay damages to his wife for lodging a frivolous complaint.Advocate Prashant Pandey represented the petitioner-wife.