Prohibited Knives Supplied: Jharkhand High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Employees Of Logistics Company Associated With Flipkart In Murder Case

The Jharkhand High Court has refused to quash an FIR against an employee of ElasticRun, a logistics Company engaged in providing delivery services to Flipkart in a robbery and murder case over supply of knives prohibited under the Arms Act.

The Court was considering a Petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered for the offence punishable under Section 125(b) (Act endangering life or personal safety of others) and 3(5) (property in possession of a person’s spouse, clerk or servant) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 to the extent of the Petitioners in the interest of justice.

The Division Bench of 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....."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Devashish Tiwari while the Respondent was represented by Panel Lawyer Soumya Sharma.

Facts of the Case

The case arises out of a murder and robbery wherein the accused allegedly used knives procured through Flipkart’s e-commerce platform. The primary offence was registered as FIR under Sections 109, 103(1), 309(6), and 3(5) of the BNS along with relevant provisions of the Arms Act. It was contended that the present Petitioners, Senior Area Manager and Delivery Service Agent, are associated with ElasticRun, which operates under a Master Services Agreement with Instakart Services Private Limited (Flipkart’s logistics subsidiary). During the investigation, it was revealed that the murder weapons were knives ordered online by accused and delivered through ElasticRun’s logistics network.

Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the prosecution’s case was premised on the allegation that, despite prior warnings issued by the Police to e-commerce platforms regarding delivery of dangerous weapons, Flipkart and its logistics partners continued to process and deliver such items. It was submitted that the Petitioners’ role was strictly ministerial and mechanical, confined to pickup and delivery of sealed consignments without any knowledge of their contents or the criminal intent of purchasers. The Master Services Agreement expressly prohibited tampering with packages, and employees are contractually bound to deliver items intact without inspection. The petition relies on statutory protections under the Information Technology Act, 2000, contending that Flipkart qualifies as an “intermediary” under Section 2(1)(w), and as such is entitled, along with its affiliates, to “safe harbour” protection under Section 79. This immunity, it was argued, extends to criminal liability as well.

It was further contended that executive or police warnings cannot create binding legal obligations on intermediaries.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset observed that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR, or charge-sheet is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly.

".....Courts ordinarily do not interfere with investigations of cognizable offences. FIRs may be quashed only where allegations, even if accepted at face value, do not prima facie constitute an offence. In State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, reported in AIR 1992 SC 605, the Apex Court held that quashing is permissible in rare cases, such as where allegations are frivolous, inherently improbable, or mala fide....", the Court observed.

It thus noted that the contentions raised by the Petitioner’s Counsel cannot be examined at this stage.

"....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 Court observed.

The Petition was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Dinesh Kumar Sahu vs. Harishankar Sahu (2025:CGHC:44176-DB)

Click here to read/ download Order