CASE TITLE:
Aby Thomas Vs The Director General Of Police
DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
June 23, 2022
BENCH:
Justice. Ziyad Rahman A.A
PARTIES:
Petitioner – Aby Thomas
Respondents – The Director General of Police, District Police Chief, The station House Officer, Flipkart Internet PVT. LTD, Tech-connect Retail PVT. LTD
SUBJECT
- The petition was filed by the petitioner as he was aggrieved by the inaction of the Station House Officer in failing to conduct the investigation on the complaint given by the petitioner.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether both the retailer and the e-commerce entity are defective in providing the goods?
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
- SECTION 415 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860: This section defines the offence cheating as any person by deceiving any other person dishonestly to do or abstain to do an act which the person if not deceived would not do is said to cheating under the section.
- SECTION 417 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860:This section provides with the punishment for the offence of cheating, that is imprisonment extending up to a period of one year or fine or both.
- SECTION 420 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860: This section deals provides punishment for in any person who is found cheating and dishonestly inducing to either deliver or destroy whole or any part of the valuable property that is imprisonment for a period extending up to seven years and fine.
- SECTION 120-B OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860:This section deals with the punishment for criminal conspiracy. Any person liable for the offence under this section is punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years or more.
OVERVIEW
- The petitioner here had ordered a laptop through an e-commerce entity Flipkart Internet Pvt Ltd with the specifications of Acer Aspire 7 Core i5 9th Gen (8GB/512 GB
- SSD/Windows) worth Rs. 53,890/- (Rupees fifty-three thousand eight hundred and ninety only), the same was sold by a retailer named Tech-Connect Retail Pvt Ltd. But the product he received was not the same but a cheaper laptop.
- The petitioner brought the same to the notice ofFlipkart and the managing director therein assured that a FIR would be lodged against the retailer, but there was no further action taken place.
- The petitioner aggrieved by the same made a complaint to the station house officer. But the police officers have failed to take any action against the same.
- Hence for the same the petitioner approached the High Court.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER
- The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has filed a complaint against the retailer and the e-commerce entity before the station house officer and the same didnot takeany action with respect to the complaint made.
- The counsel further submitted that the complaint was directed to the district police officer wherein light was brought upon the fact that Flipkart has also fraudulently imported the laptop to the petitioner as the tax invoice proves the same.
- The counsel for the petitioner further argued that both the retailer and the e-commerce entity are liable under the sections 120-B, 415, 417, 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The court taking into consideration all the relevant facts held that the District Police chief should take up the matter into consideration and issue directions to the concerned officers as to provide for a redressal as early as possible.
- The court further declared that a decision should be taken with respect to the complaint by the petitioner within a month.
CONCLUSION
- Thus, it is concluded that by the writ petition filed by the petitioner the court has directed the police officials to take necessary action against the respective retailer and the e-commerce entity and also provide for a decision with regard to the some within a period of one month.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
