Scriboard®

Advocates and Legal Consultants Privileged and Confidential

VII. Flipkart Internet Private Limited v State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Case Brief

Case Name: - Flipkart Internet Private Limited v State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Court: - High Court of Delhi
Judge Bench: - Justice Ms. Asha Menon
Case Type: - Criminal, Writ Petition
Subject: - Criminal, Electronic/Internet-based communication
Final decision: - Petition disposed

The decision of the Single judge bench has ruled in favor of the petitioner, granting their
request to nullify FIR No. 103/2020. This particular FIR had been filed against Flipkart under
both the Copyright Act of 1957 and the Trade Marks Act of 1999. The court's decision is
grounded in the belief that the petitioner should not bear criminal responsibility for the
purported violations. Furthermore, the court has determined that allowing the FIR to stand
would result in a miscarriage of justice.

The Further observations of the Supreme Court have been listed below:-

- Invoking S. 79 Safeguards: The petitioner, Flipkart, relies on the protective provisions

outlined in S. 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (I.T. Act), designating themselves
as an "intermediary." Their primary contention rests on the principle that intermediaries
should not face criminal liability for third-party actions, unless they have actively
participated in the alleged offenses.
- Adherence to Due Diligence Obligations: The petitioner asserts their meticulous compliance
with the due diligence requirements stipulated in Rule 3 of the I.T. Guidelines. This entails
the establishment of transparent protocols, privacy policies, and user agreements, which
explicitly prohibit the display of copyrighted, trademarked, or infringing material on their
platform.
- Challenges in Determining Intellectual Property Rights: It is emphasized that the petitioner
lacks the requisite expertise to adjudicate the legitimacy of claims made by complainants
regarding trademark or copyright infringement. These disputes typically fall within the
purview of civil courts, and intermediaries are ill-suited to assume a judicial role in such
matters.
- Conditional Obligation for Content Removal: The petitioner contends that their
responsibility to remove objectionable material or websites should only be triggered by a
court-issued order. Presently, in the absence of such a legal mandate, they argue that
obliging removal based solely on a complaint could be susceptible to abuse, potentially
disrupting the e-commerce landscape.
- Potential for Platform Misuse: Concerns are raised regarding the potential misuse of the
petitioner's platform if content removal were to be enacted without a court order. This
raises the specter of unfounded complaints that could lead to the removal of legitimate
content, posing a substantial threat to the integrity of e-commerce operations.
- Singular Targeting in FIR: Notably, the petitioner finds itself as the sole entity implicated in
the FIR, with no mention of other platforms or entities allegedly involved in the sale of
infringing or unauthorized products. This aspect raises pertinent questions about the
1
 Scriboard®
Advocates and Legal Consultants Privileged and Confidential

fairness and equity of singling out the petitioner for legal prosecution.

Details:-
S.No. Particular Details
1.
Case Name Flipkart Internet Private Ltd ...Appellant
Versus
State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. …Respondents

2.
Relevant  WP (Crl) 1376/2020
Citations
3.
Statue Referred  Copyright Act, 1957:
(S. 63)
 Trade Marks Act, 1999:
(S. 103, S. 104)
 Information Technology Act, 2000 (I.T. Act):
(S. 2(1)(w), S. 79, S. 66A)
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.):
(S. 482)

4.
Relevant Facts A brief narration of the facts
and Issues
 The petitioner is Flipkart, a prominent Indian e-commerce
company.
 The respondent is Ashish Girdhar, the Managing Director
of Sanash Impex Pvt. Ltd., an authorized distributor of DC
DERMACOL cosmetic products, an international brand.
 Respondent No. 2 (Sanash Impex) discovered
unauthorized sales of their DC DERMACOL products on
various e-commerce platforms, including Flipkart's
platform.
 In response, Respondent No. 2 filed an FIR against e-
commerce platforms, including Flipkart, citing violations
of the Trademarks Act (Section 103 and 104) and the
Copyright Act (Section 63).
 Instead of responding to the pre-investigation notice
under Cr.P.C. Section 91, Flipkart filed a petition to quash
2
Scriboard®
Advocates and Legal Consultants Privileged and Confidential

the FIR.

3
 Scriboard®
Advocates and Legal Consultants Privileged and Confidential

5.
Held in the case This decision of the High Court clarifies crucial points of law.
- Justice Asha Menon delivered the judgment of the Delhi High
Court.
- The primary issue addressed was whether compliance with due
diligence requirements in Rule 3 of the IT Guidelines 2021 could
exempt intermediaries from criminal liability.
- Under the IT Act, an intermediary is defined as someone
providing services related to data transmission or storage on
behalf of others.
- The IT Act exempts intermediaries from liability for third-party
content if they observe due diligence and government-
prescribed guidelines.
- The court affirmed that e-market portals like the petitioner are
recognized as intermediaries, as per the Google India case.
- The IT Act doesn't consider trademark or copyright infringement
as offenses but mandates due diligence for intermediaries.
- The court concluded that non-compliance with IT Guidelines
2021 isn't an offense under the IT Act.
- The court examined whether FIRs could be filed against
intermediaries for offenses under the Copyright Act and
Trademarks Act.
- It determined that if an intermediary complies with due
diligence obligations, safe harbor protection should apply even
in criminal cases.
- The petitioner had complied with IT Guidelines 2021.
- The court clarified that receiving complaints about infringing
content doesn't constitute "actual knowledge" necessitating
content removal.
- Content takedowns should only occur upon court orders to
prevent misuse by infringers.
- Relying on Shreya Singhal, the court emphasized that
intermediaries are liable to remove content only with a court
order, and disobedience doesn't amount to a criminal offense.
- The court noted that the petitioner appeared to have committed
no offense.
- It cited precedents to support its power to quash FIRs when the
entire case isn't disclosed, preventing miscarriage of justice and
abuse of process.
- The petition was allowed, and the FIR was quashed, but further
investigation was allowed to identify other infringers.

4
 Scriboard®
Advocates and Legal Consultants Privileged and Confidential

6. Precedents Case Precedents Cited by Flipkart:

referred  Flipkart referenced multiple court decisions, including Sanchayni
Savings Investments (I) Ltd. & Ors vs. State of West Bengal, Shreya
Singhal v. Union of India, Lovely Salhotra and Anr. v. State (NCT of
Delhi) & Anr., Kent RO Systems Ltd. v. Amit Kotak, and others.

Case Precedents Cited by Respondent No. 1:

 Respondent No. 1 relied on Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v.

State of Maharashtra and argued against stopping the
investigation or quashing the FIR.

Case Precedents Cited by Respondent No. 2:

 Respondent No. 2 referred to several cases, including Google India

Private Limited v. Visaka Industries, Amazon Sellers Services Pvt.
Ltd. v. Amway India Enterprises Pvt Ltd & Ors, and others.

5
Scriboard®
Advocates and Legal Consultants Privileged and Confidential