The Chhattisgarh High Court has refused to quash a criminal case against two employees of a logistics company who allegedly delivered a knife purchased on an e-commerce platform that was later used in a murder.
A division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, on September 1, dismissed the petition filed by Dinesh Sahu, senior area manager, and Harishankar Sahu, delivery service agent of ElasticRun, seeking to set aside the FIR.
An FIR was registered on July 19 at Mandir Hasaud police station, Raipur, under Sections 125(B) (act endangering life or personal safety of others) and 3(5) (act done with common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita against the two employees and four others.
According to police, two men, Sameer Tondon and Kunal Tiwari, ordered a knife on Flipkart and used it to commit a murder and robbery at a petrol pump in Mandir Hasaud on July 17. Police claimed the weapon was a prohibited item under the Arms Act.
The FIR alleged that the knife was delivered through ElasticRun’s logistics network, despite prior police communications warning e-commerce platforms against supplying prohibited weapons.
Advocate Devashish Tiwari, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the employees merely delivered a sealed package without any knowledge of its contents. Under their contract with Instakart Services (Flipkart’s logistics arm), employees were prohibited from tampering with consignments and were bound to deliver packages intact.
Tiwari further contended that Flipkart qualifies as an “intermediary” under Section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and enjoys “safe harbour” protection under Section 79, which should extend to its logistics partners.
Opposing the plea, government lawyer Soumya Sharma argued that since the knife in question was a prohibited item, the employees cannot avoid liability merely on the ground that they were unaware of the consignment’s contents.
Sharma also pointed out that in October 2024, the Anti-Crime & Cyber Unit, Bilaspur had written to major e-commerce platforms including Amazon, Flipkart, Snapdeal, and ShopClues, directing them to furnish details of knife sales (excluding kitchen knives).
Dismissing the plea, the High Court held that FIRs in cognizable offences cannot ordinarily be quashed at the threshold unless the allegations, even if taken at face value, disclose no offence.
“The FIR specifically alleges that the knife ordered by the accused persons through Flipkart, prohibited under the Arms Act, was delivered through the logistics chain of ElasticRun despite prior warnings from police,” the bench noted.
The court further said:
“Whether the petitioners had actual knowledge of the contents, whether they acted negligently, and whether safe-harbour protections under the IT Act are available to them, are all matters requiring investigation.”
Accordingly, the petition to quash the FIR was rejected, paving the way for further investigation against the logistics company employees.
