The Karnataka High Court refused to quash a case against two people who allegedly scammed Amazon with a fake returns scam, noting that the case was shrouded in "seriously disputed questions of fact" which could be only resolved in a "full-blown trial".

The Court was hearing a Criminal Petition seeking the quashing of a First Information Report filed under Section 420 (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) read with Section 34 (Criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The case against the accused is that they purchased high-value products from Amazon and once delivered, raised a return request within 24 hours, scheduling the return from a different address. They then allegedly replaced the original item with a low-cost product and returned it, retaining the original product and the refund amount.

A Single-Judge Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, refusing to quash the case, said, "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."

Advocate Hashmath Pasha appeared for Petitioners; Additional Special Public Prosecutor B.N. Jagadeesha appeared for the Respondents.

The Court said further, "The Apex Court holds that, when the case is shrouded with seriously disputed questions of fact, the High Court should not interfere." adding that "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 prosecution alleged that the duo carried out 104 dubious transactions while returning items purchased on Amazon and eBay, claiming that they were defective. This resulted in a loss of around 69 lakhs to Amazon, it was claimed.

The counsel for the Petitioners contended that the crime was erroneously registered since the provisions which would apply in the case would be Section 66D (Punishment for cheating by personation by using computer resource) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and not Section 420 of the IPC.

The Petitioners' counsel also argued that a customer return cannot be undertaken from any place other than from the place it was originally delivered and the refund can only be processed to the account from which the payment was made, claims that went against the prosecution's case.

The High Court cited the Supreme Court's Judgment in Kaptan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) which had held that at the stage of hearing a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the High Court cannot cannot appreciate evidence or draw its own inferences from the contents of the FIR and material relied on.

"It is further observed it is more so when the material relied on is disputed... [I]n such a situation, it becomes the job of the investigating authority at such stage to probe and then of the court to examine questions once the charge-sheet is filed along with such material as to how far and to what extent reliance can be placed on such material." the Supreme Court had said.

Cause Title: Sourish Bose and Deepanvita Ghosh v. State of Karnataka and Denu T. Nair [Criminal Petition 10546 of 2024]

Appearance:

Petitioners: Senior Advocate Hashmath Pasha and Advocate Mohammed Mubarak

Respondents: Additional Special Public Prosecutor B.N. Jagadeesha

Click here to read/download the Order


Justice M. Nagaprasanna

Tushar Kohli