Back
Jharkhand High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against , E-Kart Employees in Missing Shipments Case
In a significant ruling that clarifies the limits of for corporate employees, the has quashed the entire criminal proceeding against two employees of and . The court found that allegations of missing shipments, without proof of personal or at the inception of the transaction, could not sustain charges of or .
A Dispute Over Undelivered Goods
The case arose from a business relationship between Laljit Prasad Sinha , a seller on the portal, and Internet Private Limited. Sinha alleged that 19 shipments worth ₹1,06,720 were never received by the intended recipients, and another 19 shipments were settled for a lesser amount of ₹56,649.70, causing a total loss of ₹1,63,369. He claimed that while provided digital proof of delivery, it failed to produce physical Proof of Delivery (POD).
Sinha’s complaint singled out two employees: Manish Kumar , in-charge of the E-Kart Logistic Harmu Hub, and Chandan Kumar , a manager in 's security team. He alleged that on , both men visited his office, discussed the missing proof of delivery, and threatened and abused him and his staff.
The complainant initially filed a complaint case in the court of the , which was referred to the police. The registered FIR No. 408 of 2019, and after investigation, a was filed under . On , the , took of these offences.
The Petitioners' Challenge
Both employees moved the High Court under seeking quashing of the FIR, the criminal proceedings, and the order. Their counsel, led by , argued that even if the entire allegations were taken as true, the of both offences were missing.
They pointed out that the alleged of property was to the company, , not to the individual employees. There was no allegation that either petitioner had deceived the complainant from the inception of the business arrangement. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in , they argued that offences under Sections 406 and 420 cannot co-exist for the same occurrence. They also cited for the proposition that a mere breach of contract does not amount to unless there was at the very beginning.
Court's Analysis: No Personal , No
Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary , presiding over the single bench, meticulously examined the allegations and the legal principles.
On the charge of (Section 420 IPC):
The court noted that there was
"absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of playing
by either making false or misleading representation or dishonest concealment of any act or omission."
There was no claim that the petitioners induced the complainant to deliver any property. The court held that even taking the allegations at face value, they were
"insufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC."
On the charge of (Section 406 IPC): The court emphasized that the first essential ingredient is of property to the accused. Here, the main allegation of was against as a company. The judgment observed:
"The main allegation of of property is against the ; 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 ."
The court further stated:
"There is absolutely no of any property to the petitioners and at best, the is to the ."
Since there was no allegation of or use of entrusted property by the two employees, the court found the offence under Section 406 IPC also not made out.
The Final Decision
Concluding that continuation of the criminal proceeding would amount to an , the High Court allowed both petitions. It quashed and set aside the entire criminal proceeding, including the FIR (Doranda PS Case No. 408 of 2019) and the order dated , insofar as the two petitioners were concerned.
The decision reinforces a key principle of criminal law: corporate employees cannot be automatically held criminally liable simply because their employer is alleged to have breached a contract. For charges of and to stick, there must be clear evidence of personal involvement in or .
The ruling is particularly relevant for e-commerce and logistics companies, where disputes over lost or missing shipments are common. It provides a shield for employees who perform routine duties without personal knowledge of or participation in alleged contractual breaches.
