Intermediary 'Safe Harbour' Plea Not Grounds for Quashing FIR at Threshold in Weapon Delivery Case: Chhattisgarh High Court - 2025-09-08

Logistics Employees Not Shielded by Intermediary 'Safe Harbour' at FIR Stage for Delivering Knife Used in Murder, Rules Chhattisgarh HC

Bilaspur, CG – In a significant ruling with wide-ranging implications for the e-commerce and logistics industry, the Chhattisgarh High Court has declined to quash a First Information Report (FIR) against two logistics company employees who delivered a knife later used in a murder. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, held that the "safe harbour" protection for intermediaries under the Information Technology Act, 2000, cannot be invoked to halt a police investigation at its nascent stage, especially when the allegations involve the physical delivery of prohibited weapons.

The Court dismissed the petition filed by Dinesh Kumar Sahu and Harishankar Sahu, employees of logistics firm ElasticRun, who were booked for endangering life through negligent conduct under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

Case Background: From Online Order to Criminal Liability

The case originates from the investigation into a murder and robbery committed on July 17, 2025. The perpetrators, Sameer Tandon and Kunal Tiwari, allegedly used knives procured through the e-commerce platform Flipkart. The police investigation revealed that the weapons were delivered by ElasticRun, a logistics partner for Flipkart.

Consequently, the police registered a separate FIR (No. 293 of 2025) against the petitioners—a Senior Area Manager and a Delivery Agent at ElasticRun—under Section 125(b) (Act endangering life or personal safety of others) of the BNS. The prosecution contended that this was a case of negligence, as police authorities had issued prior warnings to e-commerce companies, including Flipkart, to stop the sale and delivery of prohibited knives.

Arguments Presented

Petitioners' Stance: The 'Safe Harbour' Defence

Counsel for the petitioners argued that their clients were merely cogs in a logistical machine, with a "strictly ministerial and mechanical" role. Their primary points were: - They had no knowledge of the contents of the sealed packages they were contractually obligated to deliver without inspection. - As affiliates of Flipkart, an "intermediary" under Section 2(1)(w) of the IT Act, they are entitled to "safe harbour" protection from criminal liability under Section 79 of the Act. - They cited precedents, including Flipkart v. State of NCT of Delhi , where courts have granted immunity to platforms that comply with due diligence obligations. - Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India , they contended that police advisories do not create binding legal obligations on intermediaries.

State's Counter: A Case of Willful Negligence

The State Counsel vehemently opposed the petition, arguing: - The knife delivered was a "button-operated/spring-assisted" knife, which is a prohibited item under the Arms Act. - Police had sent specific communications to Flipkart in October 2024 and June 2025, directing them to stop delivering such weapons and provide order details, but the company failed to comply. - By accepting an order for a prohibited item and facilitating its delivery, the entire supply chain, including the logistics employees, shares culpability. - Claims of ignorance cannot be a ground to escape criminal liability when the item in question is a prohibited weapon used in a heinous crime.

Court's Reasoning: Investigation Must Proceed

The High Court firmly sided with the State, emphasizing that its extraordinary power to quash an FIR must be used sparingly. Citing a series of Supreme Court judgments, including the landmark State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal , the bench reiterated that a court cannot conduct a mini-trial or assess the credibility of evidence at the threshold.

The Court distinguished the petitioners' reliance on intermediary immunity precedents, stating:

“The cited cases dealt with intermediary liability in the context of online content or listings. The present FIR involves allegations of physical delivery of dangerous articles used in the commission of murder.”

The bench underscored that the "safe harbour" under Section 79 of the IT Act is not an absolute shield and does not bar an investigation into allegations suggesting rash or negligent conduct that facilitates a crime. The Court explicitly 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 and cannot be conclusively determined at this preliminary stage.”

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court dismissed the petition, allowing the investigating agency to proceed with its probe. The ruling clarifies that while e-commerce platforms and their partners may enjoy certain immunities, these protections are not a blanket cover to escape investigation, particularly when there are allegations of ignoring police warnings and delivering prohibited items that lead to grave criminal offences. The judgment sets a cautious precedent, suggesting that the entire e-commerce supply chain may be held accountable for due diligence in preventing the circulation of dangerous and illegal goods.