Allahabad High Court: In a writ petition filed by Anupam Mittal, Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) of Shaadi.com, seeking quashing of an FIR filed against him under Sections 420, 384, 507, 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) and Section 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act”), the Division Bench of Madan Pal Singh and Siddhartha Varma, JJ., allowed the petition holding that, since there was no cheating on the part of Anupam Mittal and he had the protection of Section 79 of the IT Act, the offences under Section 420 of the IPC and Section 67 of the IT Act were not made out.
Background
The informant, a lawyer, had subscribed to Shaadi.com by making certain payments and providing his personal information. He alleged that several persons who had verified profiles and whose profiles had been allowed to remain on Shaadi.com were indulging in the promotion of obscenity and were also indulging in lascivious acts on the platform. He also alleged that one woman had captured obscene videos of the informant and was blackmailing him and demanding Rs 5100 as extortion money. He contended that he had complained to Shaadi.com customer care and also contacted Anupam Mittal personally for the redressal of his grievances. He further stated that Anupam Mittal was playing with his feelings and had betrayed the trust reposed in him under the garb of providing a suitable match for him.
However, when he received no redressal, he lodged the present FIR.
Analysis
At the outset, the Court stated that Shaadi.com was governed by the IT Act and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (“the IT Rules”). The advisory of the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology dated 06-06-2016 was also applicable. Thus, Anupam Mittal was an intermediary as per Section 79 of the IT Act, and as per Section 2w of the IT Act, was exempted from the liabilities which could be imposed upon the intermediaries as per the decision in Google India (P) Ltd. v. Visaka Industries, (2020) 4 SCC 162. The Court held that he was only a facilitator for exchanging information and, therefore, could not be made liable for what a “third party” does on the platform.
Noting that the informant was aggrieved by the acts which were done by the other co-accused persons on Shaadi.com and Anupam Mittal’s inaction against the same, the Court stated that just like the informant had joined Shaadi.com, so had the other co-accused persons. It was another matter that one of the co-accused’s profiles had been deleted. The Court opined that the intermediary would not be responsible for what the users did on its platform.
The Court further noted that actions were taken upon receipt of the complaints, and there was no abetment by the company that was running Shaadi.com. The Court opined that Anupam Mittal was only a CEO, and since the company was not made a party to the offence, the investigation could not proceed.
“Anupam Mittal could not be alleged to have committed any offence in his personal capacity.”
The Court remarked that the informant continued on Shaadi.com despite the harassment he faced when he could have easily withdrawn from the platform.
Regarding the extortion, the Court stated that when extortion was alleged, the informant did not have to pay any amount, either in cash or any material substance. The Court, thus, held that as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Isaac Isanga Musumba v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 15 SCC 357, no offence under Section 384 of the IPC was made out. The Court also held that since there was no cheating on the part of Anupam Mittal and he had the protection of Section 79 of the IT Act, the offences under Section 420 of the IPC and Section 67 of the IT Act were not made out.
Accordingly, the Court held that the FIR could be quashed for some of the accused while placing reliance on Lovely Salhotra v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 391. Therefore, the Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the FIR against Anupam Mittal.
[Anupam Mittal v. State of U.P., Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 8702 of 2023, decided on 26-09-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Sr. Advocate Pranav Tiwary and Advocate Anurag Vajpeyi
For the respondent: Government Advocate Ajay Kumar Chaurasia and Advocate Sunil Kumar Gaur
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
