In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has quashed the FIR lodged against Anupam Mittal, the founder and CEO of Shaadi.com, in connection with allegations of blackmail, obscenity, and cheating on the matrimonial platform. The court observed that Mittal, being the head of an intermediary company, could not be held personally liable for the actions of third-party users.
Background
The case began when a lawyer from Agra registered on Shaadi.com in early 2022 to seek a matrimonial match. He later alleged that some users on the platform, including individuals named Monika Gupta and Reena Shah, engaged in obscene acts and even attempted blackmail. According to the complaint, Gupta demanded ₹5,100 from him after recording objectionable videos.
The informant further claimed he reached out to Shaadi.com's customer care and even to Anupam Mittal directly, but no effective action was taken. On this basis, he lodged an FIR at New Agra police station under Sections 420 (cheating), 384 (extortion), 507 (criminal intimidation), 120-B (criminal conspiracy) IPC, and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act.
Court's Observations
The division bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Madan Pal Singh closely examined whether Mittal or his company could be held liable. The judges noted that Shaadi.com functioned as an intermediary under the IT Act, merely providing a platform for users to connect.
"The intermediary would not be responsible for what the candidates whose profiles have been accepted on the platform were doing," the bench observed.
The court pointed out that action had been taken on certain complaints, such as deleting suspicious profiles, and that there was no evidence of direct involvement or abetment by Mittal.
On the allegation of extortion, the court remarked:
"When extortion was alleged, the first informant did not have to pay any amounts either in cash or in the form of any material substance."
Thus, no offence under Section 384 IPC was made out. Similarly, cheating under Section 420 IPC was ruled out as there was no dishonest intention attributed to the petitioner.
Importantly, the court stressed that without the company being arrayed as an accused, its CEO could not be personally prosecuted.
Decision
The bench held that Anupam Mittal and his company were entitled to the protection granted to intermediaries under Section 79 of the IT Act. Since the platform was only a facilitator, it could not be blamed for the alleged misconduct of its users.
Concluding, the judges ordered:
"The first information report dated 30.1.2022… vis-a-vis the petitioner Anupam Mittal is, therefore, quashed."
With this, the court allowed the writ petition and cleared Mittal of all charges in the matter.
Case Title: Anupam Mittal vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others
Case No.: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. – 8702 of 2023