Representational Image (Courtesy : Financial Express)
Click the Play button to listen to article

The Jharkhand High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against an E-Kart Logistics official and a member of the Flipkart security team, observing that allegations of non-return of shipments could not constitute offences of criminal breach of trust or cheating against the individual employees when the alleged entrustment of property was to Flipkart, a company.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary was hearing petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashing of the FIR, criminal proceedings and the order taking cognizance for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

The complainant's company was a seller on the Flipkart portal and had been conducting business through the platform for several years. It was alleged that several shipments belonging to the complainant were not returned by E-Kart Logistics. According to the allegations, Flipkart provided digital copies of proof of delivery of the shipments, but did not produce the physical proof of delivery. The E-Kart official allegedly contacted employees of the complainant's company regarding the missing materials.

The allegations further stated that both petitioners visited the complainant's office at Kusai, Doranda, on April 2, 2018, where they discussed the digital proof of delivery. The petitioners were alleged to have threatened and abused the complainant and his employees, while the Flipkart security team member was also accused of treating the staff rudely.

The complainant alleged that 19 shipments worth ₹1,06,720 were not received by the company's officials and that 19 shipments had been settled for a lesser amount of ₹56,649.70, resulting in an alleged total loss of ₹1,63,369. The complainant initially filed Complaint Case No. 1601 of 2018 before the SDJM, Ranchi. Upon reference to the police, Doranda Police Station registered a case in 2019 and commenced investigation.

Following investigation, the police submitted a chargesheet against the petitioners for offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The Judicial Magistrate-XIII, Ranchi thereafter took cognizance of the offences on October 14, 2020.

Before the High Court, counsel for the petitioners argued that even if the allegations in the complaint, the complainant's statement and the inquiry witnesses' statements were accepted in their entirety, the ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 IPC were not made out against the petitioners.

It was also submitted that the main allegation of entrustment related to the arrangement between the complainant's company and Flipkart and not to the individual petitioners, who were merely employees associated with the companies.

The High Court examined the allegations and found that the essential ingredients of both offences were absent. With regard to Section 406 IPC, the Court observed that criminal breach of trust requires entrustment of property to the accused. In the present case, however, there was no allegation that any property had been entrusted to the two petitioners personally. The Court held:

“The main allegation of entrustment of property is against the Flipkart; which is a company and there is no allegation against the petitioners that the petitioners were involved in any manner at the time of entering into the arrangement by the company of the complainant and the Flipkart.”

The Bench further observed that, at best, the alleged entrustment was to Flipkart and not to the petitioners. It held:

“There is absolutely no entrustment of any property to the petitioners and at best, the entrustment is to the Flipkart,” the Court said.

As regards Section 420 IPC, the Court noted that there was no allegation that the petitioners had deceived the complainant by making any false or misleading representation or by dishonestly concealing any act or omission.

There was also no allegation that the petitioners had induced the complainant or his company to deliver any property to them, or that the complainant had parted with property after being induced by the petitioners. The Court therefore held that even if all allegations were accepted as true, they were insufficient to constitute the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC.

Since neither Section 406 nor Section 420 IPC was made out against the petitioners, the Court concluded that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

Accordingly, the High Court quashed the entire criminal proceeding, including Doranda Police Station Case No. 408 of 2019 and the October 14, 2020 order taking cognizance, insofar as the two petitioners were concerned.

Case Title: Manish Kumar v. State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Case Number: Cr.M.P. No. 1258 of 2020

Connected Case: Cr.M.P. No. 441 of 2020

Appearance:For the Petitioners: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate; Mr. Ajay Kr. Sah, Advocate; Mr. Rishav Kumar, Advocate

For the State: Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. PP; Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Addl. PP

For the Opposite Party No. 2: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate

Click Here To Read/Download Order






Tags: