The illusion of “safe” matchmaking is dangerous indeed, in an era where technology claims to bridge hearts, India’s online matrimonial platforms have transformed the search for life partners into a digital transaction. With glossy interfaces and promises of “verified profiles,” these portals appear as safe havens for those seeking companionship. But behind this comforting illusion lies a perilous reality, stories of fraud, blackmail, extortion, and emotional abuse have become disturbingly common. Individuals, often genuinely searching for love and trust, fall prey to predators hiding behind curated online profiles.What makes this digital danger even more troubling is that these platforms are legally insulated from responsibility. Under India’s Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act), they are classified as “intermediaries”, mere facilitators of user interaction and hence cannot be held liable for the criminal acts, obscenity, or exploitation committed by users on their platforms. This immunity, called the “safe harbour” protection under Section 79 of the IT Act, means that while victims suffer real harm, the platforms that host these interactions walk free of legal accountability.
In Anupam Mittal v. State of U.P. and Others (Allahabad High Court, 26 September 2025), bench comprising Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Madan Pal Singh had to decide on this uneasy truth. The Court quashed criminal proceedings against shaadi.com founder Anupam Mittal, reaffirming that platforms like his cannot be prosecuted for the misdeeds of their users. The ruling highlights the yawning gap between user vulnerability and platform immunity, a gap that continues to grow as human relationships migrate online.
Core issue was can platform owners be criminally liable for user misconduct? The Court had to decide whether the CEO of an online matchmaking platform could be held criminally responsible for offences like obscenity, extortion, or cheating allegedly committed by users on that platform. The petitioner, Anupam Mittal, argued that shaadi[dot]com merely provides the digital infrastructure for users to connect and that he, as the platform’s head, had no control over how individuals use or misuse that facility.
Brief Facts of the Case:
The complainant subscribed to shaadi.com and made payments to create a matrimonial profile. He alleged that certain users, including one Monika Gupta, shared obscene content and blackmailed him for ₹5,100 and claimed that despite reporting the matter to shaadi[dot]com’s customer support and directly to Anupam Mittal, no effective action was taken. An FIR was lodged, accusing Mittal and others under Sections 420, 384, 507, 120B IPC and Section 67 of the IT Act. Mittal approached the High Court seeking to quash the FIR, asserting protection under Section 79 of the IT Act, which shields intermediaries from liability for user generated actions.
Issues That Were Before the Court:
1. Whether shaadi[dot]com qualifies as an intermediary under Section 2(w) of the IT Act.
2. Whether Anupam Mittal, as CEO, could be personally held responsible for alleged offences by users.
3. Whether any cognizable offence under IPC or IT Act was made out.
4. Whether the FIR could be quashed as to Anupam Mittal alone, even if others remained under investigation.
The Court affirmed that shaadi[dot]com is an intermediary under Section 2(w), a facilitator that merely allows communication between users and does not control the content or conduct of its members and is protected by the Safe Harbour Protection (Section 79 IT Act). Relying heavily on Google India Pvt. Ltd. v. Visaka Industries (2020) 4 SCC 162 and Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1, the Court observed that intermediaries are immune from liability as long as they do not initiate or alter content transmission, observe due diligence and publish user policies, and take down content only upon a court or government order. Since none of these conditions were violated, the Court held that shaadi.com enjoyed full statutory protection. The Court quashed the FIR against Anupam Mittal, emphasizing that intermediaries cannot be held liable for thirdparty user actions when due diligence is followed.
The judgment strengthens the legal armour around digital intermediaries, reaffirming that online platforms cannot be dragged into criminal litigation for user behaviour. For everyday users, however, it serves as a warning, these portals promise safety but bear no legal responsibility for your emotional, financial, or reputational loss. In cases of fraud or exploitation, victims often discover that the law places the platform outside the line of fire, leaving them to pursue individual offenders who may be untraceable or fictitious.
The Court’s interpretation, while legally sound, underscores a pressing need for stronger regulatory oversight to ensure user protection without stifling innovation. For users, it’s a sobering reminder that on the internet, safety is a personal responsibility, not a platform guarantee.
LAW-IP AND MORE 