The Chhattisgarh High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against four men who worked with an online marketplace and were accused of facilitating the delivery of a kitchen knife allegedly used in a murder, holding that their claim of having no role in the sale or delivery cannot be accepted without a trial.
The court said the prosecution has gathered enough material to warrant a full-fledged examination of the evidence before deciding whether the employees can be held criminally liable.
A bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal was sharing a petition filed by four employees of Flipkart India Private Limited seeking to quash the FIR, chargesheet and the order taking cognisance against them under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
“The defence sought to be projected by the petitioners is required to be tested on the touchstone of evidence during trial and cannot be accepted at its face value… The present case does not fall within…categories warranting exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS for quashing the criminal proceedings at the threshold,” the court said on July 1.
The criminal case arose after investigators alleged that a kitchen knife purchased through the online platform was used in the fatal stabbing of a petrol pump manager during a robbery in Raipur in July 2025. The police later booked the employees, alleging they negligently facilitated the delivery despite prior warnings issued to online delivery platforms regarding the supply of potentially dangerous articles.
Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal said the court’s power to quash criminal proceedings must be used sparingly.
Robbery and murder
According to court records, two men allegedly attacked employees at Munot HP Fuels petrol pump in Raipur with a knife on July 17, 2025, while demanding cash. Manager Yogesh Giri died in the assault, while another employee sustained injuries.
During the investigation into the robbery-murder, the police claimed to have recovered the weapon and traced its online purchase through electronic records found in the mobile phone of one of the principal accused. Investigators alleged that the knife had been purchased through the etailer, following which they examined the chain through which it had been dispatched and delivered.
Story continues below this ad
A separate FIR was registered on July 19, 2025, against the four employees of the online platform and others for offences, including endangering the life and personal safety of others by rash or negligent act of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), alleging negligent conduct in facilitating the delivery of the knife.
Employees’ argument
The petitioners said they were merely salaried employees responsible for administrative and managerial functions at the company’s delivery hubs and had no role in listing products, processing customer orders or personally delivering parcels.
They argued that Flipkart Internet operated only as an intermediary platform connecting buyers and sellers and enjoyed statutory protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act. They also submitted that the knife in question was an ordinary kitchen knife and not a prohibited weapon under the Arms Act.
The employees further alleged that they had been illegally detained by the police for over 48 hours before the FIR against them was registered, and claimed the criminal case had been initiated only to justify that detention. They said the chargesheet contained no fresh evidence establishing their involvement in the alleged offence.
Story continues below this ad
‘Online platforms warned’
Opposing the plea, the state argued that investigators had collected substantial documentary and electronic evidence during the investigation, including purchase records, witness statements, replies furnished by the petitioners, recovery of the alleged weapon and documents relating to the delivery mechanism.
The prosecution further claimed that the police had earlier warned online platforms and delivery agencies against facilitating the delivery of knives and similar articles capable of endangering human life. Whether the employees ignored those communications and acted negligently, it argued, could only be determined during the trial.
Disputed facts require trial: Court
Rejecting the plea, the high court said its power to quash criminal proceedings must be used sparingly and only in exceptional cases.
It noted that the prosecution had collected witness statements, electronic purchase records, replies from the petitioners and documentary material during the investigation. Whether that evidence would ultimately prove the employees’ guilt was for the trial court to decide.
Story continues below this ad
The court also held that issues raised by the petitioners, including the extent of their responsibilities, the protection under the IT Act, the nature of the knife, alleged illegal detention, etc, were disputed facts at this stage. The high court observed that even if procedural irregularities occurred during the investigation, it would not justify quashing the FIR or chargesheet.
Plea dismissed
Holding that the probe revealed a prima facie case, the bench dismissed the petition and refused to quash the FIR, chargesheet and the magistrate’s January 12 order taking cognisance, and related criminal proceedings.
The court, however, clarified that its observations were confined to deciding the quashing petition and the trial court would independently assess the evidence and decide the criminal case without being influenced by any findings recorded in the high court‘s order
