MP High Court: Using Personal ID Instead Of Agent ID Not An Offence Under Railways Act

The Madhya Pradesh High Court's Jabalpur bench has quashed a criminal case against an authorised IRCTC e-ticketing agent who was booked by the Railway Protection Force for allegedly issuing two train tickets through his personal IRCTC login instead of his official agent ID, holding that such an allegation does not amount to an offence under Section 143 of the Railways Act, 1989.

Justice Himanshu Joshi was hearing a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Avinash Kumar Soni, who runs "Soni Cyber Café" in Singrauli and has held an authorised IRCTC Agent ID since 2015. The RPF had raided his cyber café and alleged that two tickets, one for the Tata-Jat Express and another for the Durg-Ambikapur Express, were booked using his personal IRCTC user ID rather than his authorised agent ID, leading to a case under Section 143 before the Railway Court in Jabalpur.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Vishal Daniel argued that the continuation amounted to an abuse of the process of law since no offence under Section 143 was made out. He submitted that Soni was a duly authorised agent with no material showing he ran an unauthorised ticketing business. Daniel also pointed to contradictions in witness statements over the raid's date, and argued Soni was in Varanasi for his studies at the time, with his father wrongly detained during the raid.

Advocate Sanjay Kumar Patel, appearing for the RPF, opposed the petition, arguing that the investigation found Soni issuing Tatkal tickets from his personal ID and carrying on the business of procuring and supplying tickets for consideration. He submitted that the arrest memo, case diary and witness statements disclosed the offence, and that factual disputes over the raid's date could only be examined at trial, not at the threshold.

The Court noted that Section 143 penalises the unauthorised carrying on of the business of procuring and supplying railway tickets, and applies to persons who are either railway servants or not authorised agents. It observed that the charge-sheet did not dispute Soni's authorisation as an IRCTC agent, nor did it allege that his authorisation had been cancelled or that he was functioning as a tout. "The gravamen of the allegation is only that two tickets were booked through the petitioner's personal ID instead of his authorized agent ID," the Court recorded, adding that this did not amount to carrying on business without authorisation.

Relying on the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Inspector, RPF vs Mathew K. Cherian and J. Ramesh vs Union of India, the Court held that Section 143 "does not prescribe a procedure to be followed by authorized agents for procuring or supplying tickets to their customers," and that even a violation of the terms of an agency contract does not attract the provision. Such disputes, the Supreme Court had held, are civil in nature and cannot be criminally prosecuted.

Applying this reasoning, Justice Joshi held that even if the prosecution's case was accepted in full, it did not disclose an offence, since Soni's status as an authorised agent was never in question. "Section 143 does not create a separate criminal offence for every unauthorized act or contractual breach committed by an authorized agent," the Court said, adding that in a penal statute, courts cannot expand the scope of an offence beyond the words used by the legislature.

The Court also declined to go into the other factual disputes raised by the petitioner, including the raid's date and his claimed absence from the shop, holding these questions of evidence need not be examined once the case failed on its own foundational facts.

Allowing the petition, the Court quashed the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 233/2020, RSB Choupan vs Avinash Kumar Soni, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Railway Court, Jabalpur, holding that permitting the trial to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of the court.

Case Title: Avinash Kumar Soni vs Railway Protection Force

Date of Order: August 11, 2026

Bench: Justice Himanshu Joshi