Allahabad High Court Quashes FIR Against Shaadi.com, CEO Anupam Mittal In Alleged Cheating Case

On Friday, the Allahabad High Court quashed the FIR lodged by a customer against Shaadi.com CEO, Anupam Mittal in an alleged cheating case on grounds that he did not commit any offence in his personal capacity.

The informant, a lawyer, had paid for services on shaadi.com. It is his case that he was being harassed and blackmailed by one Monika Gupta, who had allegedly recorded the informant's obscene videos. In the FIR, he stated that despite complaints on the customer care and in personal capacity to Anupam Mittal, no action was being taken to remove profiles of those who were indulging in obscenity, no action was being taken.

Thereafter, he lodged an FIR against the CEO of Shaadi.com under Sections 420, 384, 507, 120-B IPC and Section 67 of Information Technology Act. Informant also alleged that under the garb of providing matchmaking services, his trust was being betrayed.

Against the FIR, Anupam Mittal approached the Allahabad High Court in writ jurisdiction.

The bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Madan Pal Singh observed that

“The petitioner Anupam Mittal could not be alleged to have committed any offence in his personal capacity. Also, we find that the informant who was aggrieved by the acts of the participants on the platform was not harassed on his personal social media pages. Also, despite the harassment he had continued with the platform. He could have easily withdrawn from the platform.”

Relying on Section 79 of the IT Act and the judgment of the Apex Court in Google India Private Limited vs. Visaka Industries, the Court held that the petitioner was an intermediary/ facilitator, who was not responsible for the actions of third parties on the platform and no liability could be imposed on him.

Noting that one of the profiles against whom the informant had lodged a complaint had been deleted, the Court observed that the intermediary would not be responsible for the actions of the candidates who had profiles on shaadi.com.

“As and when complaints were received actions were definitely taken and we also definitely find that the intermediary i.e. the company of which the petitioner was a Chief Executive Officer had the protection of Section 79 (1) and (2) of the IT Act and there was definitely no abetment from the side of the company which was running the platform.”

The Court held that if the informant was facing problems on the platform, he could have withdrawn, but chose not to do so despite harassment. Holding that no case of extortion or cheating was made out against the petitioner, CEO, the Court quashed the FIR.

Counsel for petitioner: Senior Counsel Mr. Manish Tiwary, assisted by Pranav Tiwary and Anurag Vajpeyi

Click Here To Read/Download Order