Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2022 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 280 - HC - Indian LawsScope of intermediary - delivery of laptop as per specifications ordered or not - Whether an intermediary as defined under Section 2(1)(w) of the I.T. Act, 2000, would be liable for any action or inaction by a party or a vendor/seller making use of the facilities provided by the intermediary in terms of Buyers/Sellers Terms of Use of the Company? HELD THAT - In the present case, petitioner-Company has complied with the requirements of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 79, as well as, the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 - the Company has exercised 'due diligence' under Section 79(2)(c) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, read in conjunction with the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011. The only liability of an intermediary under Section 79(3)(b) of the I.T. Act, 2000, is to take down third-party content upon receipt of either a court order or a notice by an appropriate government authority and not otherwise. As per complaint filed by the complainant indicates that the petitioner-Company, raised the grievance of the complainant with the Seller - In terms of Section 79 of the I.T. Act, 2000, there does not appear to be any distinction between passive and active intermediaries in so far as the availability of the safe harbour provisions are concerned. An intermediary is not liable for any third-party (Seller) information, data or communication link made available or posted by it, as long as it complies with Sections 79(2) or (3) of the I.T. Act, 2000. The exemption under Section 79(1) from liability applies when the intermediaries fulfil the criteria laid down in either Section 79(2)(a) or Section 79(2)(b), and Section 79(2)(c). The factum that the petitioner-Company is an intermediary providing merely access to Sellers/Buyers is not under challenge nor disputed. The ingredients of the offence under Section 406, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 474-A IPC, in sofar, it relates to the petitioner-Company is not made out taking the allegations made in the impugned FIR on face value. Petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the FIR against the petitioner-Company. 2. Definition and role of an intermediary under the Information Technology Act, 2000. 3. Applicability of Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 4. Due diligence and compliance by the petitioner-Company. 5. Liability of the petitioner-Company for the actions of third-party sellers. 6. Legal precedents and principles for quashing FIRs. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Quashing of the FIR against the petitioner-Company: The petitioner sought the quashing of the FIR dated 26 January 2019, bearing Case Crime No. 0208, registered under various sections of the IPC. The FIR was filed by the fourth respondent, who alleged that the laptop delivered was not as per the order specifications. 2. Definition and role of an intermediary under the Information Technology Act, 2000: The petitioner-Company argued that it is an intermediary as defined under Section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, providing an online platform for buyers and sellers to interact and execute transactions. The Company emphasized that it merely provides a platform and does not control or own the products sold. 3. Applicability of Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000: Section 79 of the IT Act provides exemption from liability for intermediaries, provided they observe due diligence and comply with guidelines prescribed by the government. The court noted that the petitioner-Company, being an intermediary, is entitled to this exemption as long as it meets the conditions set out in Section 79(2) and (3). 4. Due diligence and compliance by the petitioner-Company: The petitioner-Company demonstrated that it had exercised due diligence by publishing rules, regulations, privacy policy, and user agreements. The Company also highlighted its compliance with the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011, which were in force at the time of the alleged offence. 5. Liability of the petitioner-Company for the actions of third-party sellers: The court observed that intermediaries, like the petitioner-Company, are not liable for the actions or inactions of third-party sellers using their platform, provided they comply with the due diligence requirements. The Company had raised the grievance of the fourth respondent with the seller, fulfilling its obligation under Section 79(3)(b). 6. Legal precedents and principles for quashing FIRs: The court referred to the Supreme Court's guidelines in cases like State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, which outline the circumstances under which FIRs can be quashed. The court found that the allegations in the FIR did not prima facie constitute any offence against the petitioner-Company and that the proceedings were maliciously instituted. Conclusion: The court concluded that the petitioner-Company, being an intermediary, is exempt from liability under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000. The FIR and the consequent police report were quashed, as the allegations did not make out a case against the petitioner-Company, and the proceedings appeared to be maliciously instituted. The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned FIR was set aside and quashed.
|