Partly allowed

Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Nov 2022CRL.P/1735/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Criminal Bench allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR against Reliance Jio InfoComm Limited. The court held that the complaint against the company, regarding a third-party telecom dealer cheating a complainant, did not disclose an offence against the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition allowed. FIR proceedings against the petitioner quashed insofar as they relate to the petitioner.

Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

1 - CRL.P No. 1735 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1735 OF 2018

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RELIANCE JIO INFOCOMM LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 9TH FLOOR, MAKER CHAMBERS IV 222, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021, MAHARASHTRA,

¶9

Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

AND HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT NO.53 RMZ ICON, VASANTHNAGAR, BANGALORE REPRESETNED BY ITS PA HOLDER PRABHAKAR MUTALIK DESHPANDE, S/O NARASIMHARAO, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. C.V.NAGESH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. RAGHAVENDRA K, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶15

BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER WHITEFIELD POLICE STATION BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001

¶16

SMT SHABINA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, W/O SRI FAIROZ KHAN, RESIDENT OF THE PREMISES SITUATED

¶17

¶18

CRL.P No. 1735 of 2018

¶19

OVER 1ST CROSS, RAHAMATH NAGAR BEHIND GOVERNMENT URDU PRIMARY SCHOOL, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR-563 101

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. K.P. YASHODA, HCGP FOR R1)

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.52/2018 REGISTERED AT WHITEFILED POLICE STATION, BANGALORE PENDING BEFORE A.C.J.M., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCES WHICH ARE MADE PENAL U/S 420 R/W 34 OF IPC.

¶23

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Aggrieved by registration of FIR in Cr.No.52/2018 by respondent No.1-Police pending on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, the present petition is filed.

¶26

The case of respondent No.2 - complainant is that she had purchased a Reliance Jio Sim Card and as the same did not work after a week she threw it and stopped using it. Subsequently, thereafter, accused No.2, who was the dealer of the Jio sim has sold it to accused No.3, who has used the same and has cheated respondent No.2.

¶27

¶28

CRL.P No. 1735 of 2018

¶29

Based on the said complaint, respondent No.1 - Police

¶30

has registered FIR against the petitioner as well as the accused Nos.2 and 3.

¶31

The case of the petitioner is that even if the complaint is taken as true on its face value it does not show any offence having been committed by the petitioner herein and the Company is not involved in cheating the complainant.

¶32

The allegations made in the complaint as stated above does not reveal any offence having been committed by the petitioner herein.

¶33

However, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the contention of the petitioner and submits that it is a matter of investigation. However, she is not in a position to state as to how the allegations made in the complaint disclose any offence having been committed by the petitioner herein.

¶34

As the complaint does not disclose any offence having been committed by the petitioner herein, the registration of FIR in so far as it relates to petitioner herein requires to be set aside.

¶35

¶36

CRL.P No. 1735 of 2018

¶37

Hence, the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

i. Criminal petition is allowed .

¶40

ii. Proceedings in Cr.No.52/2018 registered by respondent No.1 - Police pending on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, in so far as it relates to petitioner herein is quashed.

¶41

SD/JUDGE

¶42

Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Tara S Jain Vs Sri. B.K. Ashok Kumar

Smt Kavitha H Vs Sri Ravikumar T

Sri Prashanth Vs Smt Kavya

K S Vijay Vs D Shanmukhappa

Sri K M Ravi Vs the Chief Executive Officer

Sri Shanmugam Vs Smt Chandra Bai