The Chhattisgarh High Court has declined to quash the FIR lodged against two employees of a logistics company affiliated with an e-commerce platform, after they were implicated in facilitating the delivery of a prohibited knife that was later used to commit robbery and murder. The petitioners, a senior area manager and a delivery service agent from ElasticRun—the logistics firm handling orders for the platform—sought to have the FIR dismissed, arguing that their role was purely mechanical and ministerial, without any knowledge of the package’s contents. They claimed protection under the “safe harbour” provision of the Information Technology Act, which shields intermediaries like e-commerce platforms from liability for third-party content.
Contrary to their plea, the High Court, led by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, insisted that the FIR appears to disclose cognizable offences worthy of investigation. The court noted that police authorities had issued prior warnings to e-commerce firms, urging them to cease delivery of dangerous weapons. Despite these warnings, the supposed knife—prohibited under the Arms Act—had been delivered via the logistics chain in which the petitioners were employed. Accepting the FIR allegations at face value, the court determined that these warrant further scrutiny rather than immediate dismissal.
The petitioners argued that they were bound by contractual obligations that prohibited tampering with sealed consignments, making them incapable of knowing the contents inside. They also contended that safe-harbour immunity applied, shielding them from liability. The court ruled that this provision does not apply unconditionally—especially not to cases involving physical delivery of dangerous articles. It emphasized that although Section 79 of the IT Act provides limited immunity, it cannot be invoked when there is alleged negligent conduct or facilitation of offences.
The court underscored that determining whether the petitioners had actual knowledge of the contents, acted negligently, or can avail of safe-harbour protection requires thorough investigation. These are factual questions that cannot be settled at the preliminary stages of judicial review. As a result, the High Court found no basis to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction to quash the FIR at this stage and dismissed the petition. The investigation is permitted to proceed, and the petitioners retain the right to pursue other legal remedies such as bail or discharge during proceedings.
The case stems from a murder and robbery incident committed on July 17, where the alleged perpetrators used a knife delivered via the platform. Following recovery of the weapon, law enforcement registered the FIR under relevant sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for offences including endangering life and acting in common intention. The broader context includes concerns raised by the police after issuing communications to e-commerce entities to halt delivery of prohibited items. The High Court’s ruling underscores a refusal to allow intermediaries—or their logistics partners—to circumvent accountability in serious offences merely on technical grounds of contractual duty or intermediary status.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.