Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2022 (11) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2022 (11) TMI 280 - HC - Indian Laws


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.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates