IMPORTANT POINT
Delivery of dangerous weapons by e-commerce platforms – FIRs may be quashed only where allegations, even if accepted at face value, do not prima facie constitute an offence – Probabilities of prosecution case or mala fide intent cannot be assessed at quashing stage.

ORDER ON BOARD

Ramesh Sinha, CJ.—Heard Mr. Devashish Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. Soumya Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent/State.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:

“It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the First Information Report bearing No. 293 of 2025 lodged at Police Station: Mandir Hasoud, Raipur, Chhattisgarh on 19.07.2025 (Annexure P/1) for the offence punishable under Section 125(b) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 to the extent of the petitioners in the interest of justice.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), seeking quashing of First Information Report (FIR) No. 293 of 2025 lodged at Police Station: Mandir Hasoud, Raipur (C.G.) on 19.07.2025, for the offences punishable under Section 125(b) (Act endangering life or personal safety of others) and Section 3(5) (property in possession of a person’s spouse, clerk or servant) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that FIR No.293 of 2025 has been registered against employees of ElasticRun, a logistics Company engaged in providing delivery services to Flipkart. The case arises out of a murder and robbery committed on 17.07.2025 by accused Sameer Tandon and Kunal Tiwari, who allegedly used knives procured through Flipkart’s e-commerce platform. The primary offence was registered as FIR No. 291 of 2025 under Sections 109, 103(1), 309(6), and 3(5) of the BNS along with relevant provisions of the Arms Act. It is contended that the present petitioners, namely, Dinesh Kumar Sahu (Senior Area Manager) and Harishankar Sahu (Delivery Service Agent), are associated with ElasticRun, which operates under a Master Services Agreement dated 01.05.2025 with Instakart Services Private Limited (Flipkart’s logistics subsidiary). During the investigation of the primary crime, it was revealed that the murder weapons were knives ordered online by accused Kunal Tiwari and delivered through ElasticRun’s logistics network.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the prosecution’s case is 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. The impugned FIR seeks to impute liability on the petitioners under Sections 125(b) and 3(5) of the BNS, on the ground that delivery personnel ought to have suspected the nature of the goods from barcodes and packaging, yet proceeded with delivery, thereby allegedly endangering human life through negligent conduct. It is 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 prohibits 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 is argued, extends to criminal liability as well, as recognized in Flipkart Internet Private Limited v. State of NCT of Delhi, reported in 2022 DHC 3072 and Flipkart Internet Private Limited v. State of U.P. & Others, reprted in 2022 SCC OnLine All 706, wherein e-commerce platforms were held entitled to immunity where they complied with due diligence obligations under the IT Rules.

6. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitio