Chhattisgarh HC refuses to quash fir against logistics employees in case of online delivery of prohibited knives

RAIPUR: The Chhattisgarh High Court refused to quash the FIR registered against two logistics employees accused of facilitating the online delivery of prohibited knives later used in a murder and robbery.

The court held that allegations of negligence and violation of prior police warnings require investigation.The petition was filed by Durg's Dinesh Kumar Sahu, 32, and Raipur's Harishankar Sahu, 29, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petitioners sought to quash the FIR filed at Mandir Hasaud police station in Raipur on July 19, 2025, for offences under Sections 125(b) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.The FIR was registered against employees of ElasticRun after a murder and robbery were committed on July 17, 2025. The police said the accused, Sameer Tandon and Kunal Tiwari, used knives procured through Flipkart’s e-commerce platform. The petitioners, a senior area manager and a delivery service agent, are associated with ElasticRun, which provides delivery services to Flipkart.The petitioners' counsel, Devashish Tiwari, argued that the petitioners' role was strictly ministerial and mechanical and that they had no knowledge of the packages' contents.

He said the Master Services Agreement prohibits tampering with packages. The counsel argued that Flipkart, as an “intermediary” under the Information Technology Act, 2000, and its affiliates were entitled to “safe harbour” protection under Section 79.

He relied on judgments in Flipkart Internet Private Limited vs State of NCT of Delhi and Shreya Singhal vs Union of India to support the claim.The state counsel, Soumya Sharma, opposed the petition. She contended that the knives used were prohibited under the Arms Act.

She said police authorities had sent emails and letters to e-commerce companies, including Flipkart, to stop the delivery of such prohibited items. However, Flipkart failed to provide the information sought and continued to accept and deliver orders for such knives through its logistics partners, including ElasticRun.Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru of the Chhattisgarh HC on September 1 stated that the jurisdiction to quash an FIR is extraordinary and must be used sparingly.

They cited several Supreme Court judgments, including State of Haryana vs Ch. Bhajan Lal, to highlight that quashing is permissible only in rare cases. The court said the petitioners’ contentions could not be examined at this stage, as factual disputes and evidence assessment do not fall under its jurisdiction.The court also said the reliance on judgments granting immunity to intermediaries was not applicable, as those cases dealt with online content, not the physical delivery of dangerous articles.

The court said Section 79 of the IT Act does not provide absolute immunity and does not bar investigation.The court said the FIR, on the face of it, discloses the commission of cognizable offences. "Whether the petitioners had actual knowledge of the contents, whether they acted negligently, and whether safe-harbour protections are available to them, are all matters requiring investigation," the court said in its order.The petition was dismissed, and the investigating agency was given the freedom to proceed in accordance with the law. The court said nothing in its order would prejudice the petitioners’ rights to seek other remedies, including bail or discharge.