Chhattisgarh HC Refuses to Quash FIR Against Logistic Company Employees for Delivering Prohibited Knives, Used in Murder
Raipur: The Chhattisgarh high court has refused to quash the FIR filed against two employees of a logistic firm for delivering prohibited knives, ordered by the accused in a murder case through an e-commerce company.
A division bench of the high court comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru said that the particular FIR specifically alleges that the knives ordered by the accused persons through e-commerce company Flipkart, which were prohibited under the Arms Act, were delivered through the logistic chain firm ElasticRun where the two petitioners, against whom the FIR was filed, were employed.
The delivery was made despite prior communications and warnings from the police authorities to e-commerce platforms to desist from supplying such prohibited items, the bench said.
“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”, the high court bench said.
The court saw no ground to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction to quash the ‘FIR at the Threshold’, the bench said while dismissing the petition seeking to quash the FIR.
The case arises out of a murder and robbery committed on July 17, 2025 by the accused, Sameer Tondon, and Kunal Tiwari, who allegedly used knives procured through Flipkart’s e-commerce platform.
During investigation of the primary crime, it was revealed that the murder weapons were knives ordered online by Kunal Tiwari and delivered through the particular logistic agency.
Later, police filed an FIR against two employees of the logistic firm, Dinesh Kumar Sahu and Harishankar Sahu, under relevant sections of BNS on the ground that the 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.
The petitioners, while urging the court to quash the FIR against them, argued that they are bound by contractual obligations not to open the package to see the contents.