High Court of Chhattisgarh Refuses to Quash FIR Against Flipkart Logistics Employees in Knife Delivery Case

on

In a significant ruling dated September 1, 2025, the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur dismissed the petition seeking to quash an FIR registered against two employees of ElasticRun, a logistics service provider working for Flipkart. The case has raised important questions around the extent of liability of e-commerce logistics personnel in the delivery of prohibited goods.

📚 Case Background

The petitioners, Dinesh Kumar Sahu and Harishankar Sahu, were delivery personnel employed by ElasticRun, responsible for the pickup and delivery of consignments ordered online through Flipkart. They challenged the FIR registered under Sections 125(b) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, in connection with a murder and robbery committed on July 17, 2025. The key allegation was that the murder weapons—prohibited knives—had been ordered online and delivered through the logistics network where the petitioners were employed.

The petitioners contended their role was purely mechanical and ministerial, limited to delivering sealed packages. They invoked the “safe harbour” protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, claiming no legal obligation to inspect package contents or prevent delivery of such items without a court order.

⚡ State’s Argument

The State of Chhattisgarh argued that the knives in question were spring-assisted or button-operated, which are prohibited under the Arms Act. Moreover, police authorities had sent formal warnings to e-commerce platforms, including Flipkart, to halt the delivery of such prohibited items. Despite this, the knives were procured and delivered, later used in a heinous crime. The State insisted that ignorance of package contents cannot absolve the delivery agents from criminal liability.

⚖️ Court's Reasoning

The High Court reiterated the well-established principle that the power to quash FIRs is an extraordinary jurisdiction and should be exercised sparingly. Citing precedents such as State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, the Court clarified that:

  • Allegations, even if accepted at face value, must prima facie fail to constitute an offence for quashing.

  • Safe-harbour provisions apply primarily in the context of online content and do not provide blanket immunity in cases involving physical delivery of prohibited goods.

  • Whether the petitioners acted negligently or had knowledge of the knife’s contents could only be determined after thorough investigation and not at the threshold quashing stage.

✅ Final Verdict

The Court refused to quash the FIR, stating that the matter warranted a full investigation to determine:

  • If the petitioners acted negligently.

  • If Flipkart and ElasticRun violated any legal obligations despite warnings.

  • Whether the safe-harbour protection is applicable in the context of physical delivery of prohibited weapons.

The investigating agency was directed to proceed in accordance with law, while preserving the petitioners’ right to seek further reliefs such as bail or discharge during trial.

🌟 Implications of the Judgment

This ruling is crucial as it draws a firm line between digital intermediaries and physical delivery agents. It establishes that safe-harbour protections under the IT Act do not automatically shield delivery personnel from criminal liability when the delivery involves prohibited goods like weapons. The judgment emphasizes that police warnings carry legal weight and non-compliance can lead to criminal consequences.

As e-commerce continues to grow, this judgment will likely impact how logistics companies and delivery agents manage the handling of restricted goods.

ORDER COPY

Comments

Post a Comment