Rashmika Mandanna and Vijay Deverakonda Team Files Cyber Complaint Over Alleged Fake Posts
The online debate surrounding actors Rashmika Mandanna and Vijay Deverakonda has taken a new procedural turn. A representative of the couple submitted a complaint to Cyberabad police on Monday, October 26, alleging that fabricated and misleading material about their relationship had been circulated online. On Tuesday, police confirmed that they were examining the submission, according to a Press Trust of India report carried by Siasat. Crucially, police also said that no criminal case had been registered because the petition's contents were non-cognizable in nature.
That distinction is essential. A complaint is a request for authorities to examine conduct; it is not the same as an FIR, a charge sheet, a court finding or proof that every disputed post was fabricated. The actors' team says the material includes manipulated screenshots, impersonation, false narratives and targeted harassment. Those are the team's allegations. Police have acknowledged receipt and examination of the complaint, but the reporting available does not establish that particular social-media accounts have been found responsible for an offense.
From talk-show reactions to a police submission
The controversy followed the couple's appearance on Koffee With Karan 9, where their comments about their relationship attracted criticism and commentary online. Some viewers interpreted the exchange negatively; others defended the actors and argued that short clips could not convey the full conversation. Public disagreement over a television appearance is not itself evidence of wrongdoing. The team's complaint concerns a narrower category of alleged conduct: content it says was deliberately fabricated, manipulated or misrepresented rather than ordinary opinion or criticism.
The actors' representatives said they had provided links and material for authorities to examine. PTI reported that the complaint was submitted to the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police for the Serilingampally zone. This is a concrete development beyond the public statements and reactions that dominated earlier coverage. It gives the story a legal and digital-safety dimension, but it does not justify claiming arrests, charges or a police investigation with a registered case number when none has been reported.
What the team alleges
In a statement described by PTI, the team identified online publications and digital material that allegedly included fabricated content, manipulated screenshots, impersonation and targeted harassment. These categories matter because they differ from someone simply disliking a celebrity's public remarks. A manipulated screenshot can falsely attribute words to a person; impersonation can make a post appear to come from an account that does not control it; and fabricated narratives can travel rapidly when screenshots are shared without links to the original source.
A Hindustan Times report published Tuesday quoted a source from the actors' team discussing the concerns that prompted the complaint. That account gives more context about why the representatives decided to approach police, but it remains a source's explanation rather than a finding by authorities. The team also expressed hope that any deliberate creation or circulation of misleading narratives would be addressed through lawful processes if evidence supported the allegations. The wording matters: the existence of a complaint does not establish a coordinated campaign or a paid operation.
Police say no case has been registered
Cyberabad police's statement is the most important procedural check on the story. PTI reported that officers were examining the petition and that no case had been registered because the contents were non-cognizable in nature. A reader encountering a headline that says the actors 'filed a cyber complaint' should not automatically infer an FIR. The next meaningful development would be a formal police action, additional evidence made public, a response from people specifically accused or a legal order affecting the material at issue.
The difference between criticism and manipulation is also important for audiences. Public figures can be criticized for comments made in interviews, and those reactions can be part of legitimate entertainment coverage. A claim that a screenshot is altered or that an account impersonates someone is a factual allegation that can potentially be checked. News reporting should preserve the distinction instead of treating every negative opinion as harassment or every allegation of fabrication as proven.
What readers can verify themselves
When a viral post purports to quote a talk-show appearance, the most useful first step is to locate the original episode or a verified full-length clip. Cropped images may omit the question that prompted an answer, while reposted captions can introduce wording never spoken by the person on screen. For alleged screenshots of social-media posts, the original account, date and direct link are more informative than a picture circulated through multiple fan pages. Even these checks do not replace a police or court process when specific allegations are being investigated.
The couple's representatives have taken a formal step, and police have acknowledged it. The case remains at the examination stage described in Tuesday's reporting. NOWLIVO's previous coverage addressed the actors' public responses to the talk-show criticism; this story covers a materially new complaint and the police's explicit clarification that no case is registered. The strongest account is neither to dismiss the team's concerns nor to declare guilt, but to report what was submitted, what authorities said and what remains unproven.
