Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Chhattisgarh Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru dismissed a petition seeking quashing of a First Information Report registered against two logistics employees in connection with the delivery of prohibited knives later used in a murder and robbery. The Court held that allegations disclosed cognizable offences warranting investigation and declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to terminate proceedings at the threshold. The investigating agency has been permitted to continue inquiries in accordance with law, leaving the petitioners free to pursue remedies at later stages.

The petition was instituted under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashment of FIR No. 293 of 2025 lodged at Police Station Mandir-Hasoud, Raipur. The FIR alleged offences under Section 125(b) and Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, arising from the delivery of knives ordered through an e-commerce platform. The background of the case traces to a murder and robbery committed on 17 July 2025 by two accused, Sameer Tandon and Kunal Tiwari, who allegedly used knives procured through Flipkart’s online marketplace. The primary crime was registered as FIR No. 291 of 2025 under multiple provisions of the BNS and the Arms Act.

Also Read: Supreme Court Quashes U.P. State’s Refusal To Sanction Posts | Holds Selective Regularisation Of Similarly Situated Daily Wagers Violates Equity | Orders Regularisation In Higher Education Services Commission

During investigation of the primary case, it was revealed that the knives were ordered online by accused Kunal Tiwari and delivered through ElasticRun, a logistics company engaged by Flipkart’s logistics subsidiary under a Master Services Agreement dated 1 May 2025. The petitioners, employed as Senior Area Manager and Delivery Service Agent respectively, were implicated for allegedly delivering the consignment.

The prosecution alleged that despite prior warnings from police authorities instructing e-commerce platforms to refrain from delivering prohibited knives, orders continued to be processed and dispatched. The FIR asserted that logistics personnel, including the petitioners, ought to have suspected the nature of the goods from barcodes and packaging and refrained from delivery.

In response, counsel for the petitioners argued that their role was purely ministerial and mechanical, confined to pickup and delivery of sealed consignments without inspection. They submitted that the Master Services Agreement prohibited tampering with packages, binding employees to deliver items intact. Reliance was placed on statutory protections under the Information Technology Act, 2000, particularly Section 79, which grants safe-harbour immunity to intermediaries, extending to e-commerce companies and their logistics partners. The petition cited Delhi High Court and Allahabad High Court judgments granting similar immunity to Flipkart in past matters.

The petition further argued that police advisories cannot impose binding obligations on intermediaries absent statutory authority. Reference was made to Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1, to submit that intermediaries are required to act only upon valid court orders or directions from the Central Government under Section 69A of the IT Act. It was contended that there was no prima facie evidence of rash or negligent conduct, and imposing liability on delivery employees would criminalize routine logistics operations.

The State opposed the petition, asserting that the knives delivered were prohibited under the Arms Act. It was argued that prior communications had been sent by police to e-commerce platforms, including Flipkart, seeking details of orders of prohibited knives, but no compliance was made. The State contended that delivery of such prohibited items, which were subsequently used in a serious crime, could not be excused on grounds of ignorance.

The Court examined the scope of its powers to quash FIRs under Section 528 of the BNSS and corresponding provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It recorded: “The jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR, or charge-sheet is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly. Courts ordinarily do not interfere with investigations of cognizable offences. FIRs may be quashed only where allegations, even if accepted at face value, do not prima facie constitute an offence.”

The Bench cited State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 605, and other precedents including Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi, Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd., and Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra. It stated: “FIRs or criminal proceedings can be quashed only in accordance with the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above decisions.”

Rejecting reliance on intermediary immunity, the Court observed: “Different statutory and factual matrix: The cited cases dealt with intermediary liability in the context of online content or listings. The present FIR involves allegations of physical delivery of dangerous articles used in the commission of murder.”

The Court further recorded: “Safe-harbour not absolute: Section 79 of the IT Act affords immunity subject to conditions. It does not bar investigation where allegations suggest facilitation of crime or rash/negligent conduct.”

The Court directed that the petition seeking quashment of the FIR be dismissed. It ordered: “In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the allegations contained in the impugned FIR, taken at their face value, disclose the commission of cognizable offences. The FIR specifically alleges that the knives ordered by the accused persons through Flipkart, which were prohibited under the Arms Act, were delivered through the logistics chain of ElasticRun where the petitioners were employed, despite prior communications and warnings from the police authorities to e-commerce platforms to desist from supplying such prohibited items.”

Also Read: Chhattisgarh High Court Sets Aside ITAT Order on Demonetisation Cash Deposit | Closing Balance of Previous Year Cannot Be Taxed as Unexplained Money Under S.69A IT Act

“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 and cannot be conclusively determined at this preliminary stage.”

 “The petition is accordingly dismissed. The investigating agency shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. Nothing stated herein shall prejudice the petitioners’ rights to avail remedies in accordance with law, including bail, discharge, or defence at trial.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Devashish Tiwari, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ms. Soumya Sharma, Panel Lawyer

Case Title: Dinesh Kumar Sahu & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh
Neutral Citation: 2025:CGHC:44176-DB
Case Number: CRMP No. 2714 of 2025
Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha; Justice Bibhu Datta Guru