In a significant clarification on the investigation of cyber offences, the Orissa High Court has ruled that the Crime Investigation Department, Crime Branch (Cyber Crime) is not the exclusive investigating authority for offences under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act). Instead, local police stations are also competent to investigate such offences, provided the Investigating Officer (IO) is not below the rank of Inspector.

 

Delivering judgment in Jayanta Kumar Das v. State of Odisha, Justice Chittaranjan Dash interpreted Sections 78 and 80 of the IT Act alongside multiple government notifications issued in 2004, 2017, and 2021. The Court held that the statutory scheme preserves concurrent jurisdiction between the CID-CB Cyber Crime Police Station and local police stations, thereby rejecting the petitioner’s claim that only the CID-CB could investigate cyber-related cases.

 

The matter arose from a complaint lodged on February 23, 2019, alleging that the petitioner had uploaded forged electronic material on Facebook, attaching the complainant’s morphed photograph with defamatory and derogatory remarks to malign his reputation.

 

The case was registered and investigated by the Kumbharpada Police Station. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed under Sections 465, 469, and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 66C of the IT Act. The Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM), Puri took cognizance of the matter.

 

Challenging the proceedings, the petitioner approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), seeking quashing of the case on the ground that the local police lacked jurisdiction to investigate cyber offences.

 

The key legal issue framed was:

 

Does the CID-CB Cyber Crime Police Station enjoy exclusive jurisdiction to investigate cyber/IT offences, or do local police stations also have concurrent competence under the IT Act, subject to statutory requirements?

 

The petitioner placed heavy reliance on a 2017 Notification issued by the Home Department, arguing that it vested exclusive jurisdiction in the CID-CB for IT-related offences, thereby invalidating the investigation carried out by the local police.

 

Justice Dash examined Section 78 of the IT Act, which states that no police officer below the rank of Inspector shall investigate offences under the Act. Additionally, Section 80 empowers an officer not below the rank of Inspector to enter, search, and arrest without warrant in relation to IT offences.

 

“These provisions, when read together, clearly indicate that the IT Act does not divest general police stations of competence to investigate; rather, it conditions such competence by prescribing the minimum rank of the Investigating Officer,” the Court observed.

 

Turning to the 2017 Notification, which stated that the CID-CB Cyber Crime Police Station would have exclusive jurisdiction over districts without specialised cyber police stations while also retaining concurrent jurisdiction all over the State, the Court held that the notification had to be read harmoniously with Section 78 of the IT Act.

 

The Court reasoned that if the petitioner’s interpretation—that only CID-CB could investigate cyber offences—were accepted, it would render the phrase “concurrent jurisdiction all over the State” meaningless and create a monopoly of investigation, contrary to the legislative intent and practical realities of law enforcement.

 

“The 2017 Notification does not exclude jurisdiction of general police stations manned by Inspectors. Rather, it reinforces the supervisory role of CID-CB Cyber Crime Police Station while recognising concurrent competence of other stations,” the Court clarified.

 

A clarification issued by the Inspector-in-Charge of the CID-CB Cyber Crime Police Station was also relied upon to support this interpretation.

 

The Court held that the investigation by the IIC of Kumbharpada Police Station was valid, as it satisfied the requirement under Section 78 of the IT Act — the IO being of Inspector rank. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed as being devoid of merit.

 

The ruling affirms that:

• Local police stations across Odisha can investigate cyber offences, provided the IO is at least of Inspector rank.

• The CID-CB Cyber Crime Police Station retains concurrent jurisdiction statewide but not exclusive authority.

• The scheme of the IT Act and government notifications must be read harmoniously to avoid impractical monopolisation of cyber investigations.

 

This decision provides much-needed clarity, especially as cyber crimes surge in volume and complexity, ensuring that law enforcement capacity is decentralised and accessible, while still maintaining CID-CB’s supervisory role.