LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Google India Private Ltd. v. M/s. Visakha Industries

Criminal Appeal · 2019 INSC 1352Decided 10 Dec 2019
Criminal Appeal No. 1987 of 2014
Justice Ashok Bhushan · Justice K.M. Joseph

Background

An asbestos-manufacturing company filed a criminal defamation complaint after allegedly defamatory articles about it were posted on an online group called "Ban Asbestos India," hosted on a platform operated by Google. Google India was summoned by the Magistrate as an accused for abetting defamation (along with the group's coordinator), on the theory that it failed to remove the posts despite being notified. Google India sought to have the summoning order quashed under Section 482 CrPC, arguing it was merely an intermediary (not even the correct corporate entity, since the website was run by its US parent) and was protected from liability for third-party content.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that whether Google India (as opposed to its US parent, Google LLC) was actually the relevant "intermediary," and whether it genuinely had the technical power to remove the posts, were disputed factual questions that could not be resolved at the quashing stage and must go to trial. On the key legal question, the Court held that Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, as it stood before its 2009 amendment (the version in force when the posts were made), did not grant intermediaries protection from criminal liability for offences like defamation under Sections 499/500 IPC: that broader "safe harbour" protection only came with the later amendment and the Supreme Court's subsequent reading-down of the law in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. It set aside the High Court's specific findings on Google's alleged refusal to act on the takedown notice (since that too involved disputed facts), but otherwise declined to quash the proceedings, directing the Magistrate to proceed with the trial while leaving all other contentions open for the parties to raise there.

Lesson Learnt

Internet intermediaries are not automatically shielded from liability for defamatory content posted by third parties on their platforms: the extent of legal protection depends on which version of the law applied at the relevant time, and disputed questions like whether a company qualifies as the "intermediary" and whether it had the real ability to remove content are matters for trial, not something a court will resolve by simply quashing the case at the outset.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case