The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a writ petition filed by YouTuber and Instagram influencer Mridul Madhok, seeking to quash an FIR lodged against him on allegations of body shaming, defamation, and making false claims regarding fitness influencer Kopal Agarwal. The bench, comprising Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, observed that the FIR disclosed the commission of a cognizable offense, thereby rejecting Madhok’s plea.
Background
The case originated from an FIR filed by fitness influencer Kopal Agarwal, who accused Mridul Madhok of misusing her pictures and identity in a misleading and defamatory manner. According to Agarwal’s complaint, Madhok posted a reel on Instagram falsely claiming that she was his customer and that his fat burner supplement had helped her lose weight.
Read Also - Supreme Court Modifies Its Judgment: Validates PG Degrees of Medical Professionals in West Bengal
She further alleged that Madhok used her before-and-after transformation images without her consent, violating her privacy and copyright. Agarwal also claimed that Madhok's post had body-shamed her, leading to mental distress
The FIR against Madhok was filed under multiple provisions, including Section 318 (4) for cheating, Section 336 (3) for forgery, Section 356 (2) for defamation, Section 79 BNS for insulting the modesty of a woman, Section 67 IT Act for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form, and Section 63 Copyright Act for copyright infringement.
Read Also - Supreme Court PIL Seeks School Admissions, Government Benefits for Rohingya Refugees
The High Court, after reviewing the FIR, determined that a cognizable offense was made out against Madhok. The bench referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra (2020) 10 SCC 180, which lays down principles for quashing FIRs and interfering in criminal investigations.
“From the perusal of the FIR, a cognizable offense is made out against the petitioner. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, we do not find any interference in writ jurisdiction.” – Allahabad HC
The Court, however, clarified that if both parties were willing to compromise, Madhok could approach the Investigating Officer with proof of the settlement. The officer would then be at liberty to take an appropriate decision based on the compromise.
Read Also - Gauhati High Court Seeks Answers from Arunachal Pradesh Govt on State Human Rights Commission Issues
Madhok had approached the High Court to quash the FIR, arguing that he had learned that Agarwal was open to a compromise. However, the Court refused to entertain his plea at this stage, granting him the liberty to settle the matter outside court.
The Court’s final order stated:
“If the petitioner is able to convince the complainant and enter into a compromise, he may appear before the Investigating Officer along with the settlement, and the officer shall take an appropriate decision thereon.”
With this observation, the writ petition was dismissed.
This case highlights critical legal aspects concerning digital defamation, misuse of identity on social media, and cyber laws in India. With influencers holding significant sway over public opinion, cases like these set a precedent for legal consequences when misleading content is published without consent.
The issue also raises concerns about data privacy, cyber harassment, and the responsibilities of social media influencers. The Information Technology (IT) Act and Copyright Act play crucial roles in regulating online content and protecting individuals from misuse of their digital presence.
The Allahabad High Court’s ruling underscores the growing legal scrutiny over social media practices and reinforces the importance of ethical digital conduct. While Madhok has the option to settle the matter amicably, the case serves as a cautionary tale for influencers and digital creators regarding the legal repercussions of unauthorized content use.
The proceedings also shed light on the evolving nature of cyber laws in India, emphasizing the need for influencers and businesses to adhere to ethical and legal standards when promoting products or content online.
Case Title: Mridul Madhok vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko And 2 Others
.
