SOURCE :- SIASAT NEWS
Hyderabad: In a significant development regarding matrimonial fraud, the High Court has ruled that the director and employees of Shaadi.com must appear for investigation in a case involving scams perpetrated through fake profiles on the platform.
The court rejected petitions to quash the FIR filed against them, emphasising the responsibility of the website in such matters.
Case background
A resident of Rajahmundry, Cherukuri Harsha alias Jogada Vamsikrishna, allegedly created a fake profile on Shaadi.com using the photograph of an MLA from Yanam.
A young doctor from Jubilee Hills contacted this profile, believing it to be genuine. Harsha convinced her that his mother was a doctor residing in the US and expressed his intention to marry her.
Over time, he claimed that his bank accounts had been seized by the IT department and persuaded her to transfer a total of Rs 11 lakh, promising to return the money later.
When the victim asked for her money back, Harsha revealed his true identity. He then threatened her, stating that he would morph her photos and post them on social media, demanding an additional Rs 10 lakh and threatening to harm her and her family if she refused.
Realising she had been defrauded, the victim filed a complaint at the Jubilee Hills police station.
Police investigation and wider scam
The police investigation revealed that the accused had similarly defrauded another individual in Bengaluru of Rs 27 lakh and had also committed fraud in Mumbai.
Based on these findings, the police named Cherukuri Harsha, Shaadi.com director Anupam Mittal, Tamil Nadu team leader Vignesh, and Bengaluru manager Satish Nanayya as accused in the case.
Legal proceedings
The accused, including the website’s director and staff, filed petitions seeking to quash the FIR registered by Jubilee Hills police on February 25.
During the hearing, the counsel for the petitioners argued that Shaadi.com is merely a digital platform for registering profiles and does not have a mechanism to verify the authenticity of every profile. They contended that users are responsible for verifying details themselves.
However, the Additional Public Prosecutor countered that users trust the platform, and it cannot absolve itself of responsibility for frauds committed through it.
He argued that when the platform collects money from users, it must ensure proper verification of profiles. He insisted that the team leader and manager must appear for the investigation, and the director should do so if necessary.
After hearing both sides, Justice N Tukaramji refused to quash the FIR and directed the police to issue notices under BNS 35(3) and proceed with the investigation.
The petitions were dismissed, reinforcing the accountability of online matrimonial platforms in cases of fraud.
SOURCE : SIASAT