In a significant legal victory for Anupam Mittal, the founder of Shaadi.com and popular Shark Tank India judge, the Supreme Court of India granted him eight weeks of protection from arrest on February 3, 2026.
The bench, comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria, set aside a previous order by the Telangana High Court and directed a fresh review of Mittal’s plea to quash a cheating case filed against him.
1. The Case: “Fraud User” Allegations
The criminal proceedings originated from a complaint filed by a woman in Hyderabad who alleged she was defrauded of ₹11 lakh by a man she met on Shaadi.com.
- The Accusation: The complainant alleged that the platform failed to properly verify the user’s credentials, allowing a “fake profile” to be used for financial scamming.
- The Accused: An FIR was registered in Telangana naming Anupam Mittal (Managing Director) and two other officials, Vignesh and Satish, as accused in the cheating case.
- High Court Refusal: Last year, the Telangana High Court refused to quash the FIR, observing that the investigation should continue since the charges involved offenses punishable by less than seven years.
2. The Defense: The “Intermediary” Shield
Mittal’s legal team, led by Senior Advocate Atmaram Nadkarni, argued that holding the founder personally liable for the criminal actions of an independent user sets a dangerous precedent for the tech industry.
- “Just a Matchmaker”: Nadkarni argued that Shaadi.com acts solely as an intermediary. “I am just facilitating matching… why am I an accused?” he submitted, emphasizing that the platform does not control private user conduct.
- WhatsApp vs. Platform: The defense pointed out that while the individuals met on the site, the alleged fraudulent communication took place privately over WhatsApp, moving the interaction outside the platform’s oversight.
- Section 79 Compliance: The petition argues that under Section 79 of the IT Act, intermediaries are generally protected from liability for third-party content or actions provided they follow due diligence.
3. The Supreme Court Ruling
The Supreme Court intervened because the High Court had previously dismissed the quashing petition without examining the merits of the arguments.
| Provision | Details of the Order |
| Coercive Steps | No arrest or coercive action against Mittal for 8 weeks. |
| Remand | Case sent back to the Telangana High Court for fresh consideration. |
| Merits | The SC clarified it has “expressed no opinion” on the merits of the case. |
| Interim Relief | Mittal has been directed to approach the High Court for formal interim bail during this period. |
4. Broader Industry Impact
This case is being closely watched by India’s tech and startup ecosystem as it touches upon the “Intermediary Liability” doctrine.
- Platform Responsibility: A ruling against Mittal could force matrimonial and social media platforms to implement much stricter (and potentially invasive) user verification protocols.
- Executive Liability: The case highlights the trend of naming startup founders personally in criminal complaints for issues arising from user-generated content or platform misuse.
Conclusion: A Temporary Shield
The eight-week window provides Anupam Mittal a critical reprieve to seek regular interim bail from the High Court. While the Supreme Court has ensured he isn’t arrested immediately, the final fate of the “Shaadi.com fraud case” now rests on whether the Telangana High Court accepts the “intermediary defense.” If the High Court quashes the FIR, it will be a landmark win for platform founders; if not, the legal battle could return to the apex court.
