'Shaadi.com Not Liable for User Actions': Allahabad High Court Quashes FIR Against Founder Anupam Mittal

A first information report (FIR) was lodged on January 30, 2022, at New Agra police station under Sections 420, 384, 507, 120-B of the IPC, and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act (IT Act). The complainant, a lawyer, alleged that after subscribing to Shaadi.com and creating a matrimonial profile, he encountered obscene behavior and harassment from certain users on the platform. He further alleged that one user, Monika Gupta, recorded his obscene videos and attempted to blackmail him for Rs. 5,100. Despite raising complaints with Shaadi.com’s customer care and even contacting Mittal directly, the grievance remained unresolved, prompting him to approach the police.

The FIR named Mittal personally and invoked cheating, extortion, criminal intimidation, conspiracy under the IPC, and obscenity under the IT Act. The complainant claimed that Mittal, “under the garb of matchmaking,” had betrayed his trust.

Mittal approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR. His counsel, Senior Advocate Manish Tiwari, argued that Shaadi.com was a legally recognized intermediary under the IT Act, 2000, and protected by Section 79, which grants safe-harbour immunity to platforms hosting third-party content. He stressed that neither the company nor its CEO could control how registered users behaved on the platform and that due diligence measures, including OTP verification, privacy policies, and deletion of objectionable profiles, were followed in compliance with the IT Rules, 2021.

The counsel pointed out that no active role had been attributed to Mittal personally. Further, since the company itself was not arrayed as an accused, its director could not be prosecuted. They argued that no ingredients of cheating or extortion were established, as no dishonest inducement or delivery of property had occurred.

The complainant, however, insisted that the FIR was based on correct facts. He alleged that Shaadi.com allowed unverified and multiple profiles, which facilitated fraud and harassment. He further contended that Mittal’s influence hampered the investigation and claimed that the company had failed to act on his complaints.

After hearing both sides, a division bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Madan Pal Singh held that Shaadi.com was indeed an intermediary within the meaning of the IT Act and therefore entitled to statutory protection. Court observed that an intermediary cannot be held criminally liable for third-party actions on its platform unless it abetted or facilitated the unlawful acts, which was not the case here.

The bench noted that extortion under Section 384 IPC was not made out since no property or money was delivered by the complainant. Similarly, cheating under Section 420 IPC could not be sustained as no dishonest intention was attributable to Mittal. Court also ruled that Section 67 of the IT Act, relating to obscenity, did not apply since Mittal’s role was only that of a facilitator.

Importantly, court emphasized that Mittal, as CEO, could not be personally implicated when the company was not made an accused. Relying on decisions including Google India Pvt. Ltd. v. Visaka Industries (2020) and Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI (2015), the bench underscored that criminal liability cannot be imposed on directors in such circumstances without specific allegations.

Concluding that no criminality could be attributed to Mittal, court quashed the FIR dated January 30, 2022, insofar as it pertained to him and allowed the writ petition.