The Allahabad High Court has quashed a criminal FIR against Anupam Mittal, the founder and CEO of Shaadi.com, providing him with protection under the Information Technology (IT) Act. The court ruled that as an intermediary, Shaadi.com and its CEO cannot be held liable for the actions of its users.
The case originated in January 2022 when a lawyer from Agra registered on Shaadi.com seeking a matrimonial match. He alleged that some users on the platform engaged in obscene acts and blackmail. Specifically, he claimed that a user named Monika Gupta recorded his obscene videos and demanded ₹5,100. The complainant stated that despite contacting Shaadi.com's customer care and Anupam Mittal directly, no action was taken, leading him to file an FIR at the New Agra police station. The FIR included charges of cheating, extortion, criminal intimidation, and conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as obscenity under the IT Act. The complainant alleged that Mittal, "under the garb of matchmaking," had betrayed his trust.
Mittal then approached the High Court seeking to quash the FIR. His counsel argued that Shaadi.com is a legally recognized intermediary under the IT Act, 2000, and is protected by Section 79, which grants safe-harbor immunity to platforms hosting third-party content. The counsel emphasized that neither the company nor its CEO could control the behavior of registered users and that Shaadi.com had implemented due diligence measures like OTP verification, privacy policies, and the deletion of objectionable profiles, in compliance with the IT Rules, 2021. The court also noted that the company itself was not named as an accused in the FIR.
The complainant, however, argued that Shaadi.com allowed unverified and multiple profiles, facilitating fraud and harassment. He also contended that Mittal's influence hindered the investigation and that the company failed to act on his complaints.
The bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Madan Pal Singh ruled that Shaadi.com is indeed an intermediary under the IT Act and is entitled to statutory protection. The court observed that Mittal, as CEO, could not be personally implicated when the company itself was not named as an accused. The court referenced previous decisions, including Google India Pvt. Ltd. v. Visaka Industries (2020) and Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI (2015), which support the principle that criminal liability cannot be imposed on directors without specific allegations. The court stated that intermediaries are not responsible for the actions of candidates who have profiles on Shaadi.com. Furthermore, the court noted that the complainant could have withdrawn from the platform if he was facing problems.
Ultimately, the High Court concluded that no criminality could be attributed to Mittal and quashed the FIR dated January 30, 2022, as it pertained to him. The court allowed the writ petition, clearing Mittal of all charges in the matter. The ruling reinforces the protection provided to internet intermediaries under Section 79 of the IT Act, clarifying that they cannot be held liable for the independent actions of their users.
