Orissa High Court | Cybercrime Cases Need Not Be Investigated Only by CID-CB | Local Police Stations Also Competent Under S.78 IT Act; Exclusive Jurisdiction Claim Rejected
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Orissa Single Bench of Justice Chittaranjan Dash dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The court directed that the proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Puri, shall continue. The petitioner’s contention that the entire criminal proceeding was vitiated for want of jurisdiction was rejected. The High Court recorded that the statutory requirement under the Information Technology Act, 2000 was satisfied and the investigation was lawfully conducted by a police officer not below the rank of Inspector. The court made it clear that the issues regarding the evidentiary value of the collected materials or the merits of the allegations remain open to be considered at trial. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition was dismissed and interim orders, if any, were vacated.
On 23 February 2019, a written report was lodged before the Inspector-in-Charge of Kumbharpada Police Station, Puri. The report alleged that on 21 February 2019 at about 9:21 p.m., the petitioner uploaded on Facebook a forged electronic record by editing a photograph of the informant and posting defamatory and derogatory remarks intended to malign reputation. It was further alleged that the petitioner circulated the forged and defamatory content among different groups and individuals, thereby tarnishing the social prestige of the informant.
Based on the complaint, Kumbharpada Police Station Case No.27 of 2019 was registered. An investigation was undertaken, during which incriminating materials, including documents related to the alleged social media posts, were seized. Upon completion of investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the petitioner under Sections 465, 469, and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 66(C) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Cognizance was subsequently taken by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Puri.
The petitioner invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the criminal proceeding. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proceedings were vitiated due to lack of jurisdiction. The argument advanced was that the offences alleged pertained to cyber-crime, including creation of forged electronic records and misuse of Facebook, which are governed by the Information Technology Act, 2000. Reference was made to Home Department Notification No.36478-HOME-DA1-CRTN2-0166/2017 dated 22 September 2017, which declared the Cyber Crime Police Station at CID, Crime Branch, Odisha to have exclusive jurisdiction over cyber-crime offences across the State. It was submitted that Kumbharpada Police Station had no authority to register or investigate the case. Continuation of the proceeding was argued to be an abuse of process, as the investigation was carried out by an incompetent agency. Reliance was placed on Sharat Babu Digumarti v. Government of NCT of Delhi, (2017) 2 SCC 18, wherein it was held that once an offence falls within the scope of a special statute, the provisions of general law cannot be simultaneously invoked.
On the other hand, learned senior counsel for opposite party no.2 argued that the plea of lack of jurisdiction was misconceived. Relying on information obtained under the Right to Information Act from the Crime Branch, it was submitted that while the 2004 Notification vested the CID, CB Cyber Crime Police Station with jurisdiction throughout the State, subsequent notifications including the Home Department Notification dated 18 December 2021 had created district-level Cyber Crime & Economic Offences Police Stations, including one at Puri.
Further, the RTI reply clarified that apart from the designated Cyber Crime Police Stations, any other police station in the State is competent to register and investigate cases under the I.T. Act, provided the investigation is conducted by an officer not below the rank of Inspector. In the present case, the investigation was carried out by the Inspector-in-Charge of Kumbharpada Police Station, who was competent under Section 78 of the I.T. Act. The RTI reply specifically affirmed that there was “no harm” in prosecution or investigation of the case by Kumbharpada Police Station. It was further contended that the petitioner was a habitual offender with multiple antecedents, and therefore the plea of lack of jurisdiction was unfounded.
The Additional Public Prosecutor supported the submissions of opposite party no.2 and placed reliance on an affidavit filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, wherein it was affirmed that the investigation had been conducted strictly in accordance with law. It was pointed out that the then Inspector-in-Charge of Kumbharpada Police Station had conducted the investigation, and being of the rank of Inspector, was fully competent under Section 78 of the I.T. Act to do so. After collection of documentary and electronic evidence, a prima facie case was established and Charge Sheet No.185 dated 31 July 2020 was submitted against the petitioner under Sections 465, 469, and 500 IPC read with Section 66(C) of the I.T. Act. It was further recorded that the plea of the petitioner that the proceedings were vitiated by lack of jurisdiction was untenable.
The court recorded the statutory framework under Sections 78 and 80 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. It stated: “No police officer below the rank of Inspector shall investigate any offence under this Act.” The provision was noted to create a rank-based safeguard to ensure that offences under the I.T. Act, which involve technical appreciation of electronic records, are investigated by experienced officers.
The court further quoted Section 80 which provides: “Any police officer not below the rank of Inspector may enter any public place and search and arrest without warrant any person found therein who is reasonably suspected of having committed or of committing or of being about to commit any offence under this Act.” The court observed that these provisions, read together, indicate that the I.T. Act does not divest general police stations of competence to investigate, but prescribes that such investigation must be conducted by an officer not below the rank of Inspector.
Regarding the Government Notifications, the court noted that by Notification dated 6 July 2004 the Cyber Crime Police Station at CID, CB, Cuttack was declared to have jurisdiction over the whole State. Notification No.36478-HOME-DA1-CRTN2-0166/2017 dated 22 September 2017 was relied upon by the petitioner, which referred to exclusive jurisdiction of the Cyber Crime Police Station.
The court, however, stated the concluding words of the notification which preserved concurrent jurisdiction all over the State. It stated: “The existing Cyber Crime Police Station at CID, Crime Branch, Odisha, Cuttack which has earlier been notified to have the jurisdiction all over the State will now have exclusive jurisdiction over rest of the Police Districts along with concurrent jurisdiction all over the State and all the Cyber Crime Police Stations shall function operationally and administratively under State CID, Crime Branch.”
The court observed that the expression “exclusive jurisdiction” could not be read in isolation. It recorded: “If the interpretation urged by the Petitioner is accepted that only CID Cyber Crime P.S. could investigate all cyber offences, it would render the words ‘along with concurrent jurisdiction all over the State’ redundant and would create a monopoly that would be impractical.” The court held that the 2017 Notification did not exclude jurisdiction of general police stations headed by Inspectors, but reinforced the supervisory role of CID Cyber P.S. while recognizing concurrent competence of other stations.
The court further considered Home Department Notification No. HOME-DA1-CRTN1-0005-2021/44843/D&A dated 18 December 2021, whereby multiple Cyber Crime & Economic Offences Police Stations were created at the district level. It noted that this was in recognition of the increasing volume of cyber offences and that these stations were vested with territorial jurisdiction while preserving the supervisory role of CID, CB.
The court also referred to a clarification furnished by the Inspector-in-Charge, CID, CB Cyber Crime Police Station, in response to an RTI query, wherein it was stated: “As per the Information Technology Act 2000 Section 78 empowered that not below the rank of Inspector can investigate IT Act offences in his/her jurisdiction. It empowers the Police Station having Inspector in Charge on or above the rank of Inspector can investigate IT Act cases. As per IT Act 2000 if Kumbharpada Police Station case No.27 dated 23.02.2019 under Sections 465/469/500 IPC r/w Section 66-C IT Act is investigated by not below the rank of an Inspector of Police, there is no harm in prosecution or investigation of the said case.”
The court held that this clarification confirmed that jurisdiction under the I.T. Act was not territorially exclusive to CID, CB Cyber Crime Police Station but extended concurrently to local police stations subject to the rank requirement. In the present case, since the investigation was conducted by the Inspector-in-Charge of Kumbharpada Police Station, the requirement under Section 78 of the I.T. Act was satisfied.
The court observed: “Accordingly, the jurisdictional challenge raised by the Petitioner cannot be sustained. The statutory scheme, the Government Notifications of 2004, 2017 and 2021, and the clarifications from CID, CB Cyber Crime Police Station all point towards a harmonious interpretation that while CID Cyber P.S. retains concurrent jurisdiction across the State, local police stations headed by Inspectors are not deprived of competence to investigate cyber offences.”
The court further recorded that issues regarding defects in collection of electronic evidence or misidentification of Facebook accounts are defences available to the accused at trial. It observed: “Such disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which are intended to be exercised sparingly and only where the proceedings are manifestly without jurisdiction or unsustainable in law.”
The court concluded by recording: “In view of the above, the grounds propounded by the Petitioner do not warrant interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The CRLMC application stands dismissed, accordingly. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.” It was further clarified: “It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any view on the merits on the allegations or on the evidentiary value of the materials collected. Those issues remain open to be urged before the trial court, which shall consider them in accordance with law.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Shivsankar Mohanty, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. S. K. Mishra, Senior Advocate, Ms. S. Mohanty, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
Case Title: Jayanta Kumar Das v. State of Odisha & Anr.
Case Number: CRLMC No. 473 of 2022
Bench: Justice Chittaranjan Dash
