New Delhi [India]: The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea filed by an Advocate for lodging an FIR against Mobile App based company, MakeMyTrip India Ltd., its directors, and a Private Homestay and Kitchen, Nainital (Uttrakhand) for allegedly cheating and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
According to the complainant lawyer, he was charged with Rs 7950 per day which was on very higher side but the other occupants had given Rs 2000 to Rs. 3,000 for the same category. He further alleged that even top notch hotels are worth Rs 2000 to 3000 but he was charged Rs 8000 per day for a shabby room which looked like a store room.
The Lawyer had alleged that the accused hotel did not refund the amount or changed the room as shown at the time of booking and it was submitted that the accused are liable to pay the room fare i.e. Rs 23850 paid to them for room fare.
Earlier, Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the Application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C alongwith complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C with the observation, “Upon Court query, the petitioner has failed to point out any document or representation or photograph whereby the alleged representation made by the accused company as stated by the petitioner, stands corroborated.
The petitioner has very fairly acceded that neither in the booking voucher nor in any other document, it was expressly or impliedly written or represented that a balcony would be annexed with the room booked by the petitioner. Nor the photograph annexed with the petition shows that it is a balcony attached to any of the rooms at the property in question.
Further, the petitioner has very fairly acceded that a balcony substantially resembling with the balcony as shown in the photograph was very much present in the property in question.
Thus, it is apparent that there is no misrepresentation expressly or impliedly made by the proposed accused company so as to deceive the petitioner. In fact, it is the own presumption of the petitioner that has given rise to the present complaint of alleged cheating”, said Metropolitan Magistrate.
In Delhi High Court, Amit Sahni, Add. Public Prosecutor for the State had argued that MM, Tis Hazari Court has rightly dismissed application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C while refusing to direct for lodging FIR and as such the same does not warrant any interference of High Court.
“Against Order passed by MM dismissing application praying to lodge FIR, the Petitioner ought to have filed Petition before the Sessions Court while he has approached directly to High Court bypassing the remedy available to him” Amit Sahni further submitted.
The Petitioner before the High Court argued that the MM had wrongly dismissed his complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C with application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C, it was argued that MM should have fixed the matter for the complainant’s evidence in case it found that the complaint is not disclosing cognizable offence.
Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar, after hearing the submissions of Petitioner and APP Amit Sahni said that the court is not convinced with the arguments on behalf of the petitioner.
Justice Bhatnagar further enquired “How many days’ petitioner stayed in Hotel, three days – the petitioner responded. The bench then remarked, you may have a case when you had not used the rooms after looking the condition– you stayed there for 3 days and now you are saying its cheating” The Court observed said it is not convinced with the arguments and said that the allegations of the complaint does not disclose commission of cognizable offence.
After hearing arguments, the petitioner requested to withdraw the petition with liberty to challenge the same before the Sessions Court, the Court permitted him to withdraw the same to challenge it before the Sessions Court.
