'Publicity Driven Exercise': Orissa High Court Quashes Case Against Mukesh Ambani Over Supply Of 'Defective Mobile' To Lawyer In 2003
The Orissa High Court has quashed a criminal complaint and summoning order issued by a Magisterial Court against the Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) and its Chairman Mukesh Ambani over supply of a defective mobile handset to a lawyer in the year 2003.While setting aside the impending criminal prosecution, the Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi termed the entire exercise as...
The Orissa High Court has quashed a criminal complaint and summoning order issued by a Magisterial Court against the Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) and its Chairman Mukesh Ambani over supply of a defective mobile handset to a lawyer in the year 2003.
While setting aside the impending criminal prosecution, the Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi termed the entire exercise as a “calculated misuse of the process of the Court” and thus, observed –
“The arraigning of Shri Mukesh Dhirubhai Ambani in a complaint of this nature, in the considered view of this Court, has no real connection with the pursuit of any criminal remedy. It is, in substance, a publicity driven exercise presented in the form of a criminal complaint. The Court is not unaware that proceedings involving well known individuals tend to attract attention and are often reported widely. That, however, is no ground to invoke criminal jurisdiction.”
The court also questioned the manner in which the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate dealt with the complaint the fourth one by the complainant; it noted that the allegations relate to a transaction more than two decades old and that no inquiry was conducted to find out whether any earlier proceedings was instituted.
Background
The complainant/opposite party Prafulla Kumar Mishra, a lawyer by profession, took the subscription of a telecom scheme known as “Kar Lo Duniya Mutthi Mein”, floated by Reliance Infocomm Limited, by paying a sum of Rs. 501/- in 2003. Accordingly, a mobile handset was supplied to him through a local dealer. However, he alleged that the handset was defective from the very beginning and the promised telecom services were never properly provided.
Aggrieved, the opposite party filed a complaint case before the SDJM, Uditnagar, Rourkela. The same came be challenged before the High Court and was quashed in the year 2005. He filed a second complaint over the identical set of facts. The same was again challenged before the High Court, which quashed the pending proceedings in 2006. The opposite party impugned both the quashing orders through special leave petitions before the Supreme Court, but the same were dismissed.
He then filed a third criminal complaint in the year 2016. This time, the jurisdictional Magistrate took cognizance only against the proprietor of the dealership agency but specifically declined to summon or take cognizance against Mukesh Ambani for lack of incriminating material. The opposite party filed a criminal revision petition before the High Court challenging refusal of impleadment, but it was dismissed.
He thereafter filed an application under Section 319 of the CrPC seeking impleadment of Mukesh Ambani as an accused in his complaint case. However, the Magistrate declined such prayer citing lack of evidence. He again challenged this rejection order before the High Court, which upheld the trial Court's order, but granted liberty to file a better application before the trial court in accordance with law.
Ultimately, the complainant filed the present criminal complaint – the fourth one – in 2025 before the SDJM, Panposh, Rourkela. The Magistrate, upon recording the initial statement and inquiry evidence, issued summons to the RIL as well as Mukesh Ambani on 27.01.2026. The corporate entity and Mr. Ambani both approached the High Court challenging the complaint case as well as the summons order.
Before delving into the merits, the Court noted the peculiar nature of the case which according to it was a disproportionate criminal litigation over a trivial value (Rs. 501/-) of original transaction.
The Court relied upon the judgments in Krishna Lal Chawla v. State of Uttar Pradesh, LL 2021 SC 145 and Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash & Ors. (2004) to hold that successive complaints by the same person, merely to improve upon earlier allegations that had failed, amount to an abuse of the judicial process. It was further irked by the suppression of previous rounds of litigations by the opposite party while filing the fourth complaint, and therefore, observed –
“This is not a case of a litigant proceeding under a bona fide mistake or any excusable ignorance. The opposite party was the complainant in each of the earlier proceedings…It is well settled that a litigant invoking the jurisdiction of the court must make a full and candid disclosure of all material facts. Suppression of such material facts, particularly in criminal proceedings, has consistently been held to vitiate the process and to warrant strict response from the courts.”
Justice Panigrahi underlined that in absence of any specific provision enabling vicarious liability of a Chairman/Managing Director of a company, he cannot be vexed through criminal proceedings over business transactions made by a company owned/managed by him, especially when he has no personal or direct link to such transactions.
“To compel Petitioner No.2 [Mukesh Ambani], a respected corporate leader and Petitioner No.1 [the RIL], a corporate entity with no connection to the telecom entities involved in the 2003 transaction, to face renewed criminal prosecution for a consumer dispute of modest proportions, after twenty-three years and four rounds of litigation, would be an affront to the constitutional guarantee of life and liberty. The sword of criminal harassment cannot be permitted to hang over the heads of citizens who have already been cleared on the merits,” he observed.
The Court took note of the history of the litigations spanning over two decades against the chairman of “one of the largest corporate conglomerates” for a defective mobile handset worth Rs. 501. It said:
“If such an approach were accepted, there would be nothing to prevent a passenger from summoning the Railway Minister for a delayed train, or a postal customer from arraigning the Postmaster General for a lost letter, or a consumer from prosecuting the Union Minister for Food for a defective item supplied through a ration outlet. Criminal law does not proceed on such lines. It rests on a direct and personal nexus between the accused and the alleged offence. In the absence of such nexus, the stature or public profile of an individual cannot be used to draw him into criminal proceedings.”
Furthermore, taking into account the fact that the said scheme was floated not by the RIL but by the Reliance Infocomm Limited and other entities, which are currently undergoing insolvency proceedings, the Court held that any surviving monetary claim ought to be addressed through the Resolution Professional or through civil or consumer remedies.
Against the above backdrop, the Court held that the criminal prosecution was a gross abuse of court process. It, accordingly, quashed both the criminal complaint as well as the summons order, discharging the petitioners from any further liability. To discourage such litigations, it imposed a cost of Rs. 1000 on the opposite party.
Before parting, Justice Panigrahi took strong exception to the manner in which the criminal complaint was dealt with by the SDJM and said:
“The allegations, on their own showing, relate to a transaction more than two decades old. That circumstance alone ought to have prompted closer scrutiny. A simple inquiry as to whether any earlier proceedings was instituted would have revealed the full history. No such inquiry appears to have been made. Summons was issued to an unrelated individual and to a company with no apparent connection to the transaction, on the basis of a complaint which reiterates allegations already considered and rejected by this Court and by the Supreme Court. Issuance of summons is not a routine step. It is a judicial act carrying serious consequences. The Magistrate is required to apply his mind before setting the criminal law in motion, particularly where the complaint itself bears indications of being part of a series of proceedings. That level of scrutiny is not evident in the present case.”
Case Title: Reliance Industries Ltd. & Anr. v. Prafulla Kumar Mishra
Case No: CRLMC No. 537 of 2026
Date of Judgment: March 31, 2026
Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. N. Venkataraman, Sr. Adv. along with associates; Mr. Aditya Swarup, Adv.; Mr. Sanjeevi Seshadri, Adv.; Mr. Ritesh Patnaik, Adv.; Mr. Vappangi Sai Vara Prasad, Adv.; Mr. B. Agarwal, Adv.; Mr. Sarada Prasanna Sarangi, Adv.
Counsel for the Opposite Party: In person
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 39