Madras HC Directs Framing Of Rules To Regulate Matrimonial Websites, Denies Pre-Arrest Bail In Matrimonial Fraud Case

A Bench of Justice RMT Teekaa Raman noted the absence of rules, regulations, or Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for online matrimonial websites to ensure accurate information about age, date of birth, and other relevant details and directed the Central or State Government to initiate the formulation of regulations for these websites.

“Hence, this Court is of the considered view that Central or State Government shall take initiation for formulation of rules governing field on this kind of matrimonial web-site to ensure, age and date of birth, the basic informations about bride or bridegroom (like age, date of birth, address or duly verified before being upload in the web-site and further regulation in the nature of penal provision for suppressing material facts (namely information regarding earlier marriage, status of divorce proceedings if any divorce or not, as the result the prospective person is being put to misconception of material facts.”

The prosecution's case was that the accused used false information to register on a matrimonial website, convinced the complainant for marriage, and cheated her of gold jewelry and money. His earlier anticipatory bail plea was denied by the Chengalpet Court.

Senior Advocate A.L. Gandhimathi appeared for the Petitioner.

The petitioner's counsel, asserted the accused's innocence, stating that there's no personal connection between him and the complainant. The government advocate representing the respondent police argued that the investigation was ongoing and opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail.

After considering arguments from both sides and examining the case documents, the Court found that the accused had deceived the complainant, a doctor, through an online matrimonial fraud. He posed as a doctor, promised marriage, took her valuables and money, and failed to fulfill his promises. The accused had a history of similar fraudulent activities targeting women.

The Court stated that it was a case of "online matrimonial fraud".

The Court noted that parents of potential brides need to exercise caution with online matrimonial proposals and thoroughly verify profiles before proceeding, given the prevalence of such fraud.

Recognizing the need for preventive measures, the Court recommended that the Central or State Government initiate the formulation of regulations for these websites. Such regulations should include penalties for suppressing material facts and misrepresentations, considering that such actions fall under Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Court further emphasized the necessity of these regulations due to the increasing number of cheating cases, as defined in Section 415 of the IPC, involving these platforms.

“When the penal law, as extracted supra is clear as crystal, some kind of preventive measure to protect the prospective person for marriage, needs necessary regulation of web-site ensure material facts are not suppressed or omitted at the initial time of initiation of marriage proposal.”

The Court further stated that the shift from "caveat emptor" to "caveat venditor" is evident online. However, applying this to matrimonial ads is complex due to the unique online landscape. Online platforms demand rigorous verification of personal details (age, date of birth, address) before profile registration, necessitating compulsory proof submission. Matrimonial status info should be precise, avoiding vague terms like "unmarried," favoring specifics like "divorce pending." The Court again emphasized that the State Government needs to set regulations for accurate information.

The Court accordingly denied the petitioner's request for pre-arrest bail and thus the criminal original Petition was dismissed.

Cause Title: Prasanna v. State

Click here to read/download the Order