The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed that cyber exploitation of a minor through unauthorized access to social media accounts constitutes a grave violation of child safety, warranting immediate and comprehensive investigation. The Court declined to interfere with the FIR, emphasizing the gravity of offenses under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and the Information Technology Act.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Haroon Ali, son of Ali Mohammad, is accused of hacking the Instagram account of a ten-year-old girl, the daughter of the informant, and creating a fake identity using her personal details. Through this fabricated profile, the petitioner engaged in sexually explicit conversations with third parties, falsely representing himself as the minor girl. He also initiated video calls with the minor, during which he made lewd and inappropriate remarks. The informant alleges that despite repeated requests to delete the fake account, the petitioner refused and instead threatened to expose the family’s reputation on social media unless a ransom was paid. He claimed affiliation with a syndicate that systematically creates fake child identities for exploitation and extortion.
Key Facts
- The minor victim is aged ten years at the time of the incident
- The petitioner accessed the victim’s Instagram account without authorization
- A fake profile was created using the minor’s name, photographs, and personal information
- The petitioner sent sexually suggestive messages to third parties via the fake profile
- Video calls were conducted with the minor during which lewd conversations occurred
- The petitioner threatened to defame the family on social media if financial demands were not met
- The informant filed a complaint with Police Station Sadar Bazar, Saharanpur on an undisclosed date prior to the FIR
- The petitioner’s residence is listed as Seer Colony, Khaew, Awantipara, Phulwama, Jammu & Kashmir
Procedural History
- Undisclosed date: Incident occurred, leading to complaint by informant
- Undisclosed date: FIR registered at Police Station Sadar Bazar, Saharanpur
- Before 11.05.2026: Cyber Crime Unit, Saharanpur conducted digital forensic inquiry
- Before 11.05.2026: Cyber Crime Unit obtained email ID linked to Instagram account from Meta
- Before 11.05.2026: Email ID traced to Google servers, revealing IP address and mobile number
- Before 11.05.2026: Mobile number identified as belonging to the petitioner, Haroon Ali
- 11.05.2026: Writ petition filed before the Allahabad High Court seeking quashing of FIR
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR registered under Sections 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and relevant provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, on grounds of lack of evidence and procedural irregularity.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the allegations in the FIR, if prima facie true, disclose a cognizable offense under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, warranting investigation, or whether the petition for quashing should be granted on grounds of insufficient material.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Mr. Utkarsh Khanna contended that the FIR lacked specific details regarding the manner of hacking, the exact content of messages, and the identity of the third parties involved. He argued that the petitioner’s residence in Jammu & Kashmir and the location of the victim in Uttar Pradesh raised jurisdictional concerns. He further submitted that the threat of a syndicate was speculative and not corroborated by any independent evidence.
For the Respondent
Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, Additional Government Advocate, submitted that the FIR contained sufficient prima facie material to invoke Section 67 of the IT Act and Section 7 of the POCSO Act. He produced a communication from the Cyber Crime Unit, Saharanpur, confirming that the email ID linked to the Instagram account was traced to the petitioner’s mobile number and IP address. He emphasized that the nature of the offense - targeting a child for sexual exploitation via digital means - demands immediate investigation regardless of jurisdictional distance.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the allegations, if proven, would constitute a severe violation of the child’s right to privacy, dignity, and safety. The Court noted that the use of a child’s identity to engage in lewd communication with third parties, coupled with threats of public humiliation and extortion, falls squarely within the ambit of Section 67 of the IT Act and Section 7 of the POCSO Act, which criminalizes the use of children for pornographic purposes and digital exploitation.
"The impugned FIR not only reveals a very serious state of things affecting the security and the privacy of a child, may also involve matters of national security."
The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the threat of a syndicate was unsubstantiated, holding that such claims, even if uncorroborated at the FIR stage, do not negate the seriousness of the alleged acts. The Court emphasized that the digital trail - email ID, IP address, and mobile number - provided a clear link to the petitioner, making the FIR legally sustainable.
The Court further held that the jurisdictional challenge raised by the petitioner was misplaced, as cybercrimes are inherently transnational and the place of effect (Uttar Pradesh) is sufficient to trigger jurisdiction under Section 177 CrPC and Section 75 of the IT Act.
The Verdict
The writ petition was rejected. The Court directed the Principal Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, and the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, to ensure the investigation is conducted thoroughly and expeditiously. The links of the petitioner must be fully explored. No relief was granted to the petitioner.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Digital Evidence Is Sufficient to Sustain an FIR
- Practitioners must recognize that IP address, email metadata, and mobile number tracing constitute prima facie evidence under the IT Act and POCSO Act
- Absence of witness statements or recovered devices does not invalidate an FIR where digital footprints are established
- Cybercrime investigations must prioritize forensic data over traditional evidence at the initial stage
Jurisdiction Is Broad in Cybercrimes
- The place where the victim is located or where the impact is felt is sufficient to establish jurisdiction
- Petitioners cannot evade accountability by claiming residence in another state
- Police must coordinate across states for digital evidence collection under Section 91 CrPC and Section 69 of the IT Act
POCSO Applies to Digital Sexual Exploitation
- Creating fake profiles of minors for lewd communication qualifies as "sexual assault" under Section 7 POCSO
- Threats to expose intimate content constitute psychological abuse under Section 2(a) POCSO
- Prosecutors must invoke both Section 67 IT Act and Section 7 POCSO in tandem for maximum deterrence
