Authority: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur
Order Date: 01.07.2026
Case Overview
- Petitioners: Mohit Kumar, Abhijit Goswami, Gulrez Ali, and Alok Sahu, all employees of Flipkart India Private Limited (Regional Manager, Delivery Operations Manager, Asset Security Protection Manager, Sorting Executive respectively).
- Respondents: State of Chhattisgarh and various police officials.
- Relief sought under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS): quash FIR No.293/2025 (dated 19.07.2025), charge‑sheet No.592/2025 (dated 31.12.2025), the cognizance order dated 12.01.2026, and all further proceedings.
- FIR No.293/2025 alleged offences under Sections 125(b) and 3(5) of BNSS relating to a robbery‑murder incident at Munot HP Fuels Petrol Pump where a knife purchased via the Flipkart platform was used.
- Petitioners were detained for over 48 hours before FIR registration, their mobiles seized, and later released on bond.
- The prosecution’s charge‑sheet reproduces FIR allegations and adds documentary/electronic evidence: online order records, recovery of the weapon, witness statements, and notices under BNSS.
- Petitioners argue lack of personal involvement, vicarious liability, and reliance on Section 79 of the IT Act; they claim the knives were ordinary kitchen knives not prohibited under the Arms Act.
- State counsel contends the investigation uncovered sufficient material linking the petitioners to negligent facilitation of knife delivery, justifying prosecution.
- The Court examined precedents on quashing powers (Bhajan Lal, Rupan Deol Bajaj, etc.) and recent Supreme Court judgments (Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani, Neeharika Infrastructure) emphasizing that quashing is an extraordinary remedy and only appropriate when the FIR/charge‑sheet does not disclose a cognizable offence.
- The Court found that the FIR and charge‑sheet, taken together with the investigation material, disclose a prima facie case of offences under BNSS; the disputed factual issues (knowledge, negligence, statutory protection) must be decided by the trial court.
Final Outcome
- The application for amendment of the prayer clause (I.A. No.03/2026) was allowed to correct FIR number.
- The petition to quash FIR No.293/2025, charge‑sheet No.592/2025, the cognizance order, and all consequent proceedings was dismissed.
- No order as to costs was made.
- The trial court shall continue the criminal proceedings independently, without being influenced by this order.
Topics: Criminal Procedure; E‑commerce Liability