Advocates:
['KARTIKEYA SARAN', 'G A', '', 'SAMARTH SINHA']

A.F.R.

Reserved on 15.09.2022

Delivered on 17.10.2022

Court No. - 48

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3487 of 2019

Petitioner :- Flipkart Internet Private Limited

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Kartikeya Saran

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Samarth Sinha

Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

Hon'ble Syed Waiz Mian,J.

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 Report¹ 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

2, 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

1. for short ‘FIR’

2. for short “Act, 1956”

Criminal Procedure, 1973

3 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

3. for short ‘Cr.P.C.’

2

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