The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a plea by ElasticRun employees seeking to cancel an FIR after a knife they delivered via Flipkart was later used in a murder. The court said the case requires full investigation into knowledge, negligence, and IT Act safe harbour claims.
The Chhattisgarh High Court has refused to cancel a criminal case against two employees of a logistics company who allegedly delivered a knife purchased online, which was later used for a murder and robbery.
A division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, on September 1, dismissed the petition filed by Dinesh Sahu, a senior area manager, and Harishankar Sahu, a delivery service agent of ElasticRun. Both had asked the court to quash the FIR registered against them.
The FIR was filed 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. It named the two employees along with four others.
Police said that two men, Sameer Tondon and Kunal Tiwari, had ordered a knife on Flipkart and later used it to commit a murder and robbery at a petrol pump in Mandir Hasaud on July 17. The police also stated that the knife was a prohibited weapon under the Arms Act.
The FIR claimed that the knife was delivered through ElasticRun’s logistics network, even though police had earlier sent communications warning e-commerce platforms not to supply prohibited weapons.
Advocate Devashish Tiwari, who represented the petitioners, told the court that the employees had only delivered a sealed package without any knowledge of what was inside.
He pointed out that under their contract with Instakart Services (Flipkart’s logistics arm), the employees were not allowed to open consignments and were bound to deliver them as they were.
Tiwari also argued that Flipkart should be considered an “intermediary” under Section 2(l)(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and enjoys “safe harbour” protection under Section 79, which he said should also extend to its logistics partners.
However, government lawyer Soumya Sharma opposed the plea, saying that since the knife in question was a prohibited item, the employees cannot escape liability just by claiming they did not know the contents of the package.
Sharma further highlighted that in October 2024, the Anti-Crime & Cyber Unit, Bilaspur had written to major e-commerce companies like Amazon, Flipkart, Snapdeal, and ShopClues, asking them to provide details of knife sales (excluding kitchen knives).
After hearing both sides, the High Court said that an FIR in a cognizable offence cannot usually be quashed at the initial stage unless the allegations, even if accepted fully, show no offence. The court observed:
“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 also 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.”
With these remarks, the court rejected the plea to quash the FIR. This means the investigation against the employees of the logistics company will continue.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Flipkart
