Telangana High Court Quashes Cheating, Impersonation Case Against Student Booked For Creating 'Fake' YouTube Videos On Contractor

The Telangana High Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated against a student accused of creating and uploading "fake" videos about a contractor and his family on YouTube after the latter allegedly failed to construct the petitioner's house within the stipulated time. 

In doing so the court held that the allegations in the complaint did not attract offences under Section 420 IPC (cheating) or Section 66D (impersonation) of IT Act.

Justice Tirumala Devi Eada observed that continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of process of law.

The Court, quoting the Supreme Court judgement in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, noted that an FIR may be quashed when “the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.”

Accordingly, the Court held that the proceedings were liable to be quashed.

The court was hearing a petition by 24-year-old student Mangali Bhargav Kumar seeking quashing of proceedings pending before the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate for offences registered under Section 420 IPC and Section 66D of the IT Act.

According to the complaint, the complainant's husband was engaged in construction work on contract in Shadnagar. As part of their work, they undertook the construction of a house belonging to the petitioner's father. During the course of the work, the contractor allegedly demanded higher labour charges, which were paid by the petitioner's parents.

However, the despite payment of ₹2,60,000, it was alleged that the complainant failed to hand over the constructed house and cracks developed in the house walls.

It was alleged that the petitioner subsequently took photographs of the contractor and his family members from Instagram, captured live movements, created fake videos and uploaded them on YouTube with voice-over commentary in order to damage the former's reputation and prevent them from obtaining future construction contracts.

The Court examined whether the allegations made out the ingredients of the offences invoked.

With respect to Section 420 IPC (cheating), the Court held that the complaint did not disclose any dishonest inducement or delivery of property. It observed that “there is no dishonest inducement on the part of the petitioner and it is not the case of the de facto complainant that he was made to deliver any property,” and therefore the offence of cheating was not attracted.

Similarly, the Court held that the allegations did not satisfy the ingredients of Section 66D of the IT Act, which punishes cheating by personation through computer resources. The Court noted that the complaint did not allege that the petitioner had impersonated the complainant while creating the alleged videos.

In the absence of these essential ingredients, the Court concluded that continuation of the proceedings would constitute an abuse of process.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the criminal petition and quashed the proceedings against the petitioner.

Case Title: Mangali Bhargav Kumar v. State of Telangana & Anr.

Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 15532 of 2025

Appearance: Sri Rapolu Bhaskar for the Petitioner; Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.