Safe Harbour No Shield: Chhattisgarh HC Refuses To Quash FIR Against Flipkart-Linked Delivery Staff For Delivering Knives Used In Murder

The Chhattisgarh High Court has refused to quash FIR against employees of Elastic Run– a logistics company providing delivery services to Flipkart, which delivered a prohibited knife that was subsequently used as a weapon for committing robbery and murder.The specific allegation against the employees of ElasticRun— Dinesh Kumar Sahu (Senior Area Manager) and Harishankar Sahu (Delivery Service Agent), was that despite prior warnings issued by the police to e-commerce platforms regarding delivery of dangerous weapons, Flipkart and its logistics partners continued to deliver such items, including the knife which was used to commit murder and robbery.Accordingly, offences under Section 125(b) (act endangering life or personal safety of others) and Section 3(5) (criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 were registered against the employees of ElasticRun.Refusing to quash the FIR, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru observed,“…we are of the considered opinion that the allegations contained in the impugned FIR, taken at their face value, disclose the commission of cognizable offences. The FIR specifically alleges that the knives ordered by the accused persons through Flipkart, which were prohibited under the Arms Act, were delivered through the logistics chain of ElasticRun where the petitioners were employed, despite prior communications and warnings from the police authorities to e-commerce platforms to desist from supplying such prohibited items.”Petitioners had contended that liability was imposed upon them on the ground that delivery personnel ought to have suspected the nature of the goods from barcodes and packaging before proceeding with delivery. However, they argued that their role is strictly ministerial and mechanical, confined to pickup and delivery of sealed consignments without any knowledge of their contents or the criminal intent of purchasers, and further, that they are bound by the MSA which prohibits tampering with packages. The petitioners further argued that police warnings cannot create binding legal obligations on intermediaries. They also contended that Flipkart qualifies as an “intermediary” under Section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act, and as such is entitled, along with its affiliates, to “safe harbour” protection under Section 79. Lastly, they reasoned that criminal liability for end-users' misuse of lawfully delivered goods cannot be extended to logistics employees.On the contrary, the State argued that the knife, which was procured from Flipkart and used as the murder weapon, was a prohibited knife under the Arms Act. Consequently, the employees of ElasticRun cannot escape liability merely on the ground that they were unaware of the contents of the package they delivered. It further submitted that Flipkart had not furnished any information to the Anti-Crime & Cyber Unit, which had mailed a host of e-commerce websites, directing them to provide details of the supply of online orders of knives.The Court observed that the present FIR involves allegations of physical delivery of dangerous articles used in the commission of murder, investigation of which is yet to ascertain whether there was any breach of due diligence or negligence. Further, the Court explained that Section 79 of the IT Act, which gives a “safe harbour” to intermediaries, affords only conditional immunity and does not bar investigation where allegations suggest facilitation of crime or rash/negligent conduct.Against this backdrop, the Division Bench observed,“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 and cannot be conclusively determined at this preliminary stage. Accordingly, we see no ground to invoke our extraordinary jurisdiction to quash the FIR at the threshold.”The petition was accordingly dismissed.Case Details:Case Number: CRMP No. 2714 of 2025Case Title: Dinesh Kumar Sahu and another v. State of ChhattisgarhClick Here To Read/Download Order

Safe Harbour No Shield: Chhattisgarh HC Refuses To Quash FIR Against Flipkart-Linked Delivery Staff For Delivering Knives Used In Murder

Saahas Arora

Tags