The Allahabad High Court has cleared Shaadi.com founder Anupam Mittal of all criminal charges in a 2022 FIR, stating the matrimonial platform is an intermediary under IT Act. The court held Mittal cannot be held personally responsible for the actions of users.
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against Shaadi.com founder Anupam Mittal, ruling that the matrimonial website, as an internet intermediary, cannot be held personally responsible for the actions of its users.
A division bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Madan Pal Singh passed the order on September 26, 2025, allowing Mittal’s writ petition and quashing the FIR registered at New Agra police station in January 2022.
The FIR was lodged following a complaint by an advocate who claimed that he had subscribed to Shaadi.com to find a matrimonial match. According to the complaint, certain individuals operating profiles on the platform engaged in obscene conduct.
One user, Monika Gupta, allegedly recorded objectionable videos and demanded Rs 5,100 as extortion money.
The complainant said that despite raising concerns with Shaadi.com’s customer service and even reaching out directly to Mittal, no corrective action was taken, prompting him to register the FIR.
The FIR named Mittal personally and invoked provisions of cheating, extortion, criminal intimidation, and conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The complainant accused Mittal of betraying his trust “under the guise of offering matrimonial services.”
Mittal strongly contested the allegations, calling them “false and ludicrous.” His legal team, led by senior advocate Manish Tiwari, argued that Shaadi.com’s role was limited to that of an intermediary under Section 2(w) of the IT Act and thus fell squarely within the statutory safe-harbour protections of Section 79.
The platform, the counsel explained, exercised due diligence by verifying user information, providing privacy safeguards, and removing objectionable profiles when notified.
They stressed that neither Mittal nor the company had control over the actions of registered users once the profiles were activated.
The counsel also pointed out that the company itself had not been made an accused party in the case, stating that this made Mittal’s personal prosecution legally untenable.
They further argued that the elements of extortion and cheating were not present, as no property or money had actually changed hands, and no dishonest inducement could be attributed to Mittal.
The complainant, however, maintained that the FIR was based on accurate facts and accused Shaadi.com of allowing unverified and duplicate profiles, which, according to him, enabled fraudulent activities. He also alleged that Mittal’s influence was interfering with the investigation.
After considering the arguments from both sides, the Allahabad High Court concluded that Shaadi.com was functioning as an intermediary and therefore enjoyed the protections of Section 79 of the IT Act.
The bench observed that criminal liability could not be fastened on Mittal merely because the complainant faced harassment from other users of the platform.
The court noted that there was no evidence of abetment by the company or its CEO and that charges of extortion or cheating could not be sustained in the absence of any delivery of money or dishonest inducement.
The court held that Mittal could not be personally prosecuted when the company itself was not named, and consequently quashed the FIR as it applied to him.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Anupam Mittal
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
