HC refuses to quash FIR against logistics firm employees for delivery of knife used in murder

Bilaspur, Sep 4 (PTI) The Chhattisgarh High Court has refused to quash an FIR registered against two employees of a logistics company for allegedly delivering a knife, purchased on an e-commerce website, which was subsequently used for committing 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 logistics company.

A First Information Report was registered against the two along with four others on July 19 at Mandir Hasaud police station in Raipur district 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.

As per the police, two men, Sameer Tondon and Kunal Tiwari, had purchased a knife on Flipkart's e-commerce platform, and allegedly used it for committing a murder and robbery at a petrol pump in Mandir Hasaud area on the outskirts of Raipur on July 17. The sale of the knife was prohibited under the Arms Act, police claimed.

The two ElasticRun employees were booked for allegedly having delivered the knife to the accused.

Advocate Devashish Tiwari, the petitioners' lawyer, argued in the HC that his clients had only delivered a sealed consignment without any knowledge of its content or the intention of the purchaser.

The ElasticRun had an agreement with Instakart Services (Flipkart's logistics subsidiary) which prohibits tampering with packages, and employees are bound to deliver items intact without inspection, the lawyer said.

Under the Information Technology Act, 2000, Flipkart qualifies as an "intermediary" under section 2(1)(w), and is entitled, along with its affiliates, to "safe harbour" protection under Section 79, advocate Tiwari said.

Government lawyer Soumya Sharma contended that the knife ordered by the accused, Sameer Tandon and Kunal Tiwari, was a prohibited item, and the petitioners cannot escape criminal liability merely on the ground that they were unaware of the content of the package.

On October 17, 2024, the Anti-Crime & Cyber Unit, Bilaspur had sent e-mails to Amazon, Flipkart, Snapdeal and ShopClues e-commerce websites, directing them to provide details of online orders of knives, except kitchen knives, on these platforms, Sharma pointed out.

The high court, after hearing arguments, noted that courts ordinarily do not interfere with investigation of cognizable offences, and FIRs are quashed only where allegations, even if accepted at face value, do not constitute an 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 communications and warnings from the police to e-commerce platforms to desist from supplying such prohibited items," the HC noted.

"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," it said, refusing to quash the FIR. PTI COR TKP KRK