Flipkart delivery dispute: Jharkhand HC quashes criminal case against two employees
SUMAN K SHRIVASTAVA Ranchi, August 31: The Jharkhand High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings against two employees of Flipkart and E-Kart…
SUMAN K SHRIVASTAVA
Ranchi, August 31: The Jharkhand High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings against two employees of Flipkart and E-Kart in a dispute involving 19 undelivered shipments, holding that the allegations did not satisfy the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary passed the order while allowing two criminal miscellaneous petitions filed by Manish Kumar, in-charge of the E-Kart Logistics Harmu Hub, and Chandan Kumar, a manager with the Flipkart security team.
The case arose from a complaint filed by a company that was selling products through the Flipkart platform. According to the allegations recorded in the judgment, several shipment materials belonging to the complainant were allegedly not returned by E-Kart Logistics.
The complainant claimed that 19 shipments valued at Rs 1,06,720 were not received, while settlements were made for Rs 56,649.70, resulting in an alleged total loss of Rs 1,63,369.
The complainant further alleged that the two petitioners visited its office at Kusai in Doranda on April 2, 2018, behaved rudely with employees, abused and assaulted the complainant and his staff, and discussed the disputed deliveries.
A complaint case was subsequently filed before the SDJM, Ranchi. After the matter was referred to the police, Doranda Police Station Case No. 408 of 2019 was registered. Following investigation, police submitted a chargesheet against the two petitioners for offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The Judicial Magistrate-XIII, Ranchi, took cognisance of the offences on October 14, 2020.
ALSO READ: Palamu school denies class 1 student was beaten by senior, says injury followed fall
HC examines ingredients of cheating, criminal breach of trust
Before the High Court, the petitioners argued that they were merely employees and there was no allegation that they had been entrusted with the disputed property or that they had deceived the complainant.
Their counsel also relied on Supreme Court and Jharkhand High Court precedents concerning the requirements for offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.
The High Court noted that criminal breach of trust under Section 406 requires, among other things, entrustment of property and dishonest misappropriation or conversion. For cheating under Section 420, there must be deception and dishonest or fraudulent inducement resulting in delivery or retention of property, or conduct causing or likely to cause damage or harm.
‘Entrustment was to Flipkart, not petitioners’
The court found that the principal allegation concerning entrustment of property was against Flipkart as a company, and there was no allegation that either of the two petitioners had been involved when the business arrangement between the complainant and Flipkart was entered into.
On the allegation of cheating, the court observed that there was no allegation that the petitioners had made a false or misleading representation, dishonestly concealed any fact or induced the complainant to deliver property.
The court also found no allegation that the complainant had parted with property after being induced by either petitioner.
With regard to Section 406, the High Court held that there was no entrustment of property to the petitioners. At best, the entrustment was to Flipkart.
“In the absence of any allegation of entrustment or dishonest misappropriation of any entrusted property,” the ingredients of Section 406 IPC were not made out against the two employees, the court held.
Court calls continuation of case abuse of process
The High Court concluded that neither Section 420 nor Section 406 IPC was made out against the petitioners even if the allegations were considered in their entirety.
It held that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law and consequently quashed the entire criminal proceeding, including Doranda Police Station Case No. 408 of 2019 and the magistrate’s October 14, 2020 order taking cognisance against the petitioners.
The two criminal miscellaneous petitions were accordingly allowed.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary on August 17, 2026.
