The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that an authorized e-ticketing agent using his personal IRCTC user ID over his agent ID to book tickets would not attract criminal liability under Section 143 of the Railways Act. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 340]

Allowing the agent's petition and quashing the criminal proceedings against him, the bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi noted:

"The allegation that such authorized agent used a personal ID contrary to the conditions imposed by IRCTC may constitute a breach of the terms and conditions governing his agency, and may invite appropriate administrative or contractual action by the competent authority, but such alleged breach by itself cannot attract criminal liability under Section 143 of the Railways Act"

A petition was filed seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 143 of the Railways Act, which provides for penalties for running a business of unauthorised procurement and sale of railway tickets. 

Per the petitioner, he has been an authorized IRCTC e-ticketing agent since 2015 and has been operating a cyber cafe in Singrauli. The petitioner claimed that he had been operating with an authorized agent ID. 

The petitioner argued that the Railway Protection Force conducted a raid at this cafe and found that two railway tickets had been issued through the petitioner's personal user ID and not from authorised agent ID. Thus, a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner under Section 143 of the Railways Act before the competent Railway Court. 

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to an abuse of the process of law. The petitioner argued that there was no evidence establishing that he was carrying out unauthorised business of procuring or supplying railway tickets. 

It was further submitted that at the time of the alleged raid, the petitioner was not at the shop, and his father, who was present at the shop, was illegally detained by the RPF Officials. 

The counsel for the Railway Protection Force submitted that the petitioner was issuing tatkal tickets from his personal IRCTC ID instead of an authorised agent ID.

The court noted that Section 143 of the Railways Act penalizes the unauthorised carrying on of the business of procuring and supplying tickets. The bench further held,

"The essential ingredients of the offence are that the accused must either be a railway servant or a person not being a railway servant or an authorised agent, and that such person carries on the business of procuring and supplying railway tickets without authorization". 

Noting that the petitioner had been an authorised IRCTC e-ticketing agent since 2015, the bench observed that the primary contention concerned the booking of the two tickets through his personal ID. However, the chargesheet does not allege that the petitioner was an unauthorised person or was carrying on the business of procuring or supplying tickets without authorisation. 

Referring to the Supreme Court cases of Inspector RPF v Mathew K Cherian and J Ramesh v Union of India [SLP Criminal 9225-9226 of 2022], the bench reiterated that the purpose of Section 143 is to restrict those not authorised by the Railways from conducting business. The bench highlighted that Section 143 does not apply to railway servants and authorised agents. 

Further referring to the case of J Ramesh, the bench elucidated that where an authorised agent violates the terms and conditions of his agency, it would not attract Section 143. The Supreme Court clearly stated that proceedings cannot be initiated under Section 143 for alleged breach of terms and conditions. Any breach by an authorised agent would be liable to civil action and not criminal prosecution. 

Therefore, the bench held that permitting criminal prosecution against the petitioner for an act, which, per the Supreme Court, does not constitute an offence under Section 143 of the Railways Act, would amount to an abuse of justice. 

Accordingly, the petition was allowed, and the criminal proceedings were quashed. 

Case Title: Avinash Kumar Soni v Railway Protection Force, MCRC-9527-2023

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 340

For Petitioner: Advocate Vishal Daniel

For Respondent: Advocate Sanjay Kumar Patel

Click here to read/download the Order