Seriously Disputed Facts, Like A Maze: Karnataka HC Refuses To Quash Cheating Case Against Two Booked For Defrauding Amazon Of Rs 70 Lakh

Dismissing a plea filed by two persons seeking quashing of an FIR registered against them for allegedly defrauding Amazon Seller Services Limited to the tune of Rs 69,91,940, the Karnataka High Court said that the facts in the case are "so seriously disputed" that they are like a "maze" and would require a full blown trial. 

Dismissing the petition filed by Sourish Bose and Deepanvita Ghosh Justice M Nagaprasanna in his order said, “The Apex Court holds that, when the case is shrouded with seriously disputed questions of fact, the High Court should not interfere.The questions of fact are so seriously disputed in the case at hand; they are maze and it would amaze this Court to interfere on such facts”. 

The company had lodged a complaint before the police on April 25, 2017 alleging offence punishable under Section 420 (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) IPC. As per the prosecution case, accused No.1 used to place an order to be delivered to accused No.2 and one lady in eBay, relative of accused No.1 processed the order.

The moment the order was delivered, it was alleged, that accused No.2 initiated C-return. While C-return was initiated, the product in the box was changed, it is alleged. C-return is taken back which is routed through eBay, the prosecution said. It was argued that the petitioners would then have the original product with them and money of the product also with them as refund is received. This went on for a long time and Amazon noticed it after 104 transactions, it was contended. 

The petitioner argued that the crime is erroneously registered. It was argued that these are online transactions, therefore, Section 66D (Punishment for cheating by personation by using computer resource) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is what had to be laid against the petitioners and not Section 420 of the IPC.

Further, if Section 66D of the Act had to be invoked which is a non-cognizable offence, permission of the learned Magistrate would be required and, therefore, it has vitiated the entire proceedings, it was contended. 

Findings

Firstly the high court rejected the contention of the petitioners of Section 66D of IT Act ought to have been invoked. It said, “This submission cannot but be said to be preposterous, in the least. They are all fictional, as there is no crime registered under Section 66D. If there is no charge laid under Section 66D, there is no warrant to even consider these submissions”. 

Dealing with the charge of cheating (Section 415 IPC) the court said, “If the facts are pitted to the ingredients of Section 415, what would unmistakably emerge is that, the property of Amazon is with a dishonest intention booked and secured, again with a dishonest intention, returned and refund is sought on a changed product. Two properties are retained again with dishonest intention. One the product itself and the other the money of the product.”

Thus it held “If this cannot be cheating, it is ununderstandable as to what can be a classic illustration of ingenious cheating. The submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that it would not amount to cheating is on the face of it is unacceptable”. 

It further said that an amount close to Rs 70 Lakh was found in the "coffers of the account of accused No.1". Therefore, the submission that the ingredients are not met, is again a "figment of imagination" of the senior counsel for the petitioner, the court said. 

The high court also observed, “On the advent of the internet and its tremendous advancement, the world today is unipolar. Crimes and its commission have become ingenious, particularly in the digital age of today. The modus operandi, in these new age crimes, have completely changed the conventional acts of robbery and dacoity. Though they still exist, digital crimes have overshadowed the conventional crimes. The consequences of such crimes are beyond boundaries”. 

The court dismissed the petition saying, “The case at hand is shrouded with seriously disputed questions of fact and any such seriously disputed questions of fact can be thrashed out only in a full-blown trial. This Court would be loathe to interfere with such facts which require a full-blown trial”. 

It however clarified that its observations made in the course of the order are only for the purpose of consideration of the petitioners' quashing plea and the same shall not bind or influence the proceedings pending between the parties. 

Case Title: Sourish Bose & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR

Counsel for Petitioners: Senior Advocate Hashmath Pasha for Advocate Mohammed Mubarak for Petitioners.

Counsel for State: Additional SPP B.N Jagadeesha 

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 492

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No. 10546 OF 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order