Forbes Technology vs. State By Bagalagunte Police
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Forbes Technology, represented by its proprietor, filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash an FIR registered against it. The FIR was filed by the second respondent, Rajesab K., for alleged offences under Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The complainant alleged that he contacted the petitioner, believing it to be an authorized service provider of Forbes AO Smith Company. A technician sent by the petitioner serviced his water purifier, after which the complainant discovered the petitioner was not authorized, leading to a loss of ₹13,000. The petitioner presented a GST certificate, registration certificate, and bill to establish its authorization and also filed a memo showing a refund of ₹13,000 to the complainant.
Held
The Court allowed the criminal petition and quashed the FIR against the petitioner. The Court reasoned that the petitioner had provided evidence, including a GST certificate, registration certificate, and bill, which indicated that it was an authorized service provider of M/s. AO Smith Company. Additionally, the petitioner had refunded the entire amount of ₹13,000 to the second respondent on 23.12.2024. Considering these facts, the Court was of the considered opinion that the continuation of the impugned proceedings against the petitioner was not justified. The ratio decidendi is that where a petitioner demonstrates through documentary evidence that they were authorized and has also resolved the financial dispute by refunding the amount claimed, the continuation of criminal proceedings under the IT Act and BNS for alleged cheating or misrepresentation may be quashed to prevent abuse of process.
Key Issues
1. Whether the FIR registered against the petitioner for offences under Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is liable to be quashed, considering the evidence presented by the petitioner? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that it was an authorized service centre of M/s. AO Smith Company, as evidenced by its GST certificate, registration certificate, and bill. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that the entire amount of ₹13,000, which was the subject of the dispute, had been refunded to the second respondent on 23.12.2024. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner was unjust and unwarranted. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment records that the learned HCGP appeared for the State. However, no specific arguments made by the State are detailed in the judgment. The second respondent, though served, remained unrepresented.
Sections Cited
Section 66(C), Section 66(D), Section 318(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following relief: HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22335 "WHEREFORE the petitioner above named most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the FIR against the petitioner in Crime No.465/2024 of Bagalagunte Police Bengaluru on the file of XXXI A.C.J.M at Bengaluru for the offence p/u/s 66(d), 66(c) of I.T. Act and for the offence p/u Section 318(4) of BNS by allowing this petition, in the interest of justice."
Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent No.1/State and perused the records. Respondent No.2 is served and un-represented.
A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent No.2 filed the instant complaint on 12.12.2024 which was registered as FIR in Crime No.465/2024 against the petitioner, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 318 of BNS, 2023. 4. According to the second respondent/complainant, he contacted the petitioner on the premise that the petitioner was an authorized service provider/Centre of HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22335 Forbes AO Smith Company and the technician Girish of Ratna Enterprises sent by the petitioner carried out service of the Water Purifier in the residence of respondent No.2, who subsequently came to know that the petitioner was not an authorized service centre and consequently, the second respondent incurred loss in a sum of `13,000/- and filed the instant complaint, making the aforesaid allegations against the petitioner.
In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the registration Certificate, GST Certificate, bill, vide Annexures C, D and E, in order to point out that the said document would establish that the petitioner was an authorized service centre of M/s. AO Smith Company from whom the respondent No.2 purchased the subject Water Purifier. In addition thereto, the learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo along with a receipt for having returned `13,000/- back to the second respondent on 23.12.2024. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22335
Under these circumstances, having regard to the fact that the entire expenses incurred by the second respondent has been returned back to him by the petitioner on 23.12.2024 itself coupled with the fact that the petitioner actually possesses and holds a valid registration certificate, GST Certificate and bill, all of which clearly establish that he was the authorised service provider/centre of M/s. AO Smith Company, the manufacturer of Water Purifier, I am of the considered opinion that the continuation of the impugned proceedings qua the petitioner deserves to be quashed.
In the result petition, I pass the following: ORDER i. The Criminal Petition is hereby allowed; ii. The complaint/FIR in Crime No.465/2024 of Bagalagunte Police Station, Bengaluru, pending on the file of the XXXI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City, for the HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22335 offences punishable under Sections 66(D) and 66(C) of Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 318(4) of BNS, 2023, qua petitioner herein/accused, is hereby quashed. (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMV* List No.: 2 Sl No.: 23
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.