JUDGMENT :

(Suneet Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Kartikeya Saran and Ms. Suchita Mehrotra, learned counsels appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. Manju Thakur, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. By the instant writ petition, petitioner is seeking quashing of the First Information Report, [for short ‘FIR’] dated 26 January 2019, bearing Case Crime No. 0208 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 474-A IPC, registered at Police Station Kavi Nagar, District Ghaziabad.

3. Petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, [for short “Act, 1956”], having its registered office at Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as “Company”).

4. The fourth respondent, claims to be a practising lawyer at Ghaziabad, filed an application under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, [for short ‘Cr.P.C.’] on which the learned 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. The fourth respondent on 12 October 2018, placed an order for purchase of a Laptop being H.P. 15 A.P.U., Dual Core, A-6 (4GB/I TB HDD/Windows 10 Home) 15” B.W. Model, accordingly, made payment at Rs. 17,990/- through online payment for the product. The booking ID generated for the said purchase being OD 113621553490664000.

5. Grievance of the fourth respondent is that the Laptop delivered on 22 October 2018, was having processor of brand ‘A.M.D’ instead of brand ‘Intel’, thus, according to the fourth respondent, delivery of the product was not as per the specifications for which order was placed. Aggrieved, complainant-fourth respondent registered a complaint with the petitioner-Company regarding the alleged discrepancy of the product.

6. 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.

7. Thereafter, fourth respondent lodged a criminal complaint against the petitioner-Company directly with the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad. It appears that nothing was done on the complaint, accordingly, fourth respondent filed an application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad, being Application No. 6474 of 2018. On the said complaint the Magistrate passed an order dated 14 January 2019, in terms of the application directing the concerned police station to register a case for the offence disclosed in the application.

8. In the impugned F.I.R. the fourth respondent reiterated that he is a long time user of the Company’s website and had placed order on down payment for the purchase of H.P. Laptop from the market place Seller (petitioner-Company). It is alleged that the product received by the fourth respondent was not as per the specification for which the order was placed. The matter was raised by a complaint with the petitioner-Company, but, the Seller declined to replace the product and refund the consideration stating that the product is as per the specifications for which the order was placed. It is further alleged that the product delivered to the fourth respondent was having brand ‘A.M.D.’ processor as against brand ‘Intel’ for which order was placed as per the specification of the product displayed by the Seller on the Company’s website on the date of purchase.

9. The petitioner-Company has raised challenge to the impugned F.I.R. seeking its quashing, inter alia, on the ground that petitioner-Company is an e-commerce Marketplace/Platform that provides access to Buyers and Sellers through their website www.flipkart.co