{"id":288339,"date":"2022-10-18T18:57:01","date_gmt":"2022-10-18T13:27:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/?p=288339"},"modified":"2022-10-18T19:17:30","modified_gmt":"2022-10-18T13:47:30","slug":"allahabad-high-court-fir-flipkart","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/constitutional-law-news\/courts-news\/allahabad-high-court-fir-flipkart\/","title":{"rendered":"Allahabad High Court quashes FIR against Flipkart under IT Act, says will be unjust to initiate proceedings against intermediary"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
The Allahabad High Court <\/a>while quashing an FIR lodged against Flipkart, observed that the company is exempted from any liability under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000, no violation can ever be attributed or made out against the directors or officers of the intermediary, as the same would be only vicarious, and such proceedings as initiated against them would be unjust and bad in law. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Division Bench of Justice Suneet Kumar and Justice Syed Waiz Mian passed this order, while hearing a petition filed by Flipkart Internet Private Limited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By the writ petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of the First Information Report dated January 26, 2019, bearing Case under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 474-A IPC, registered at Police Station Kavi Nagar, District Ghaziabad.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Bengaluru.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The fourth respondent, claims to be a practising lawyer at Ghaziabad, filed an application under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on which the Magistrate vide order dated 14 January 2019, directed the concerned police station to register a case in terms of the application and investigate into it, wherein, it is alleged that complainant regularly purchases products from the sellers on the website of the petitioner-Company knowing to be of quality goods provided by the Company.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Also Read: <\/strong>Law Minister Kiren Rijiju calls Collegium system opaque, says as per Constitution, appointment of judges a government job<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n The fourth respondent on October 12, 2018, placed an order for purchase of a Laptop and accordingly, made payment at Rs 17,990\/- through online payment for the product.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Grievance of the fourth respondent is that the Laptop delivered on 22 October 2018, was having processor of brand \u2018A.M.D\u2019 instead of brand \u2018Intel\u2019, thus, according to the fourth respondent, delivery of the product was not as per the specifications for which order was placed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Aggrieved, complainant-fourth respondent registered a complaint with the petitioner-Company regarding the alleged discrepancy of the product.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The complaint was taken up by the Company as per their Dispute Redressal Policy, with the Seller i.e Tech Connect Retail Private Limited, but Seller declined to replace or refund the consideration of the product, stating that the product was dispatched as per specifications purchased by the fourth respondent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Thereafter, the fourth respondent lodged a criminal complaint against the petitioner-Company directly with the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court noted that nothing was done on the complaint, accordingly, the fourth respondent filed an application under Section 156(3), CrPC before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On the said complaint the Magistrate passed an order dated January 14, 2019, in terms of the application directing the concerned police station to register a case for the offence disclosed in the application.<\/p>\n\n\n\n