Amazon India v. State of Maharashtra
(2022) 1 Bom CR (Cri) 326
In the High Court of Bombay
WP 3047/2021
Before Justice Sandeep K. Shinde
Decided on October 28, 2021

Relevancy of the Case: Criminal liability of an e-commerce platform due to non-delivery of an ordered product by the seller

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 2(w))
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 34, 415, 420)
• The Constitution of India, 1950 (Article 227)
• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 200, 202, 154(3), 156(3), 482)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The complainant placed an order that was not delivered to him by the petitioner (Amazon) and the accused number 2 (seller).
• The complainant lodged a complaint with the Central Police Station; however, they did not take any action.
• The concerned Judicial Magistrate First Class issued directions to the first respondent (State) for registering an FIR. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has approached the High Court through a writ petition.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates:

• The petitioner’s counsel argued that the element of cheating is wholly absent. The present dispute is purely commercial in nature, resulting in a consumer dispute or deficiency in service. The Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class lacked jurisdiction to issue orders without compliance under Section 154(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioner is merely an intermediary in the transaction, so it should not be a party to the present case.
• The respondent’s counsel submitted that the order was placed through the petitioner’s website, and the payment was made to the petitioner’s UPI address. Hence, it is a party to the present dispute. Non-delivery of the ordered product and failure to solve the raised complaint by the petitioner’s customer executive to initiate a refund resulted in a breach of the A to Z guarantee clause, amounting to cheating.

Opinion of the Bench

• The petition is neither a seller nor a buyer but only an intermediary acting as a facilitator. Hence, it should not be a party to the present dispute.
• The absence of malafide intention and lack of relevant evidence exclude cheating from the present case.

Final Decision

• The court allowed the petition and quashed the pending complaint before the Judicial Magistrate and associated proceedings.