Anupam Mittal vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 26 September, 2025
20. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first informant himself, this Court finds that Shaadi.com is a platform which is governed by the IT Act and is also governed by the Rules, 2021. The advisory of the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology dated 6th June, 2016, was also applicable. Definitely as per Section 79 of the IT Act, the petitioner which is an intermediary and, as per Section 2w of the IT Act, was exempted from the liabilities which could be imposed upon the intermediaries as per the judgement in the case of Google India Private Limited vs. Visaka Industries reported in (2020) 4 SCC 162. This Court finds that the petitioner was only a facilitator of exchanging of information and, therefore, for what a third party does on the platform could not make the intermediary liable for his or her act. As per the first information report, the petitioner was aggrieved by the acts which were done by the other co-accused persons on the platform provided by Shaadi.com. We find from the first information report that when Reena Shah a particular individual who had got access to the Shaadi.com was not behaving properly and when her acts were reported by the informant and were not looked into by the Shaadi.com, the petitioner was aggrieved by the inaction of the intermediary. Similar was the case with another co-accused Monika Gupta. Also the acts of the other co-accused were reported to the petitioner but none of the complaints had borne fruit and, therefore, the first information report was lodged. The Court finds that just as the informant had joined the platform so had the other co-accused persons joined the platform. It is another matter that one of the co-accused Reena Shahs profile had been deleted. However, we are of the view that the intermediary definitely would not be responsible for what the candidates whose profiles has been accepted on the platform of the intermediary were doing. As and when complaints were received actions were definitely taken and we also definitely find that the intermediary i.e. the company of which the petitioner was a Chief Executive Officer had the protection of Section 79 (1) and (2) of the IT Act and there was definitely no abetment from the side of the company which was running the platform. Still further, we are of the view that the petitioner was only a Chief Executive Officer and when the company was not made a party to the offence then the investigation could not proceed with. The petitioner Anupam Mittal could not be alleged to have committed any offence in his personal capacity. Also, we find that the informant who was aggrieved by the acts of the participants on the platform was not harassed on his personal social media pages. Also, despite the harassment he had continued with the platform. He could have easily withdrawn from the platform.