Concurrent jurisdiction exists under the IT Act, allowing local police to investigate cyber offenses if conducted by Inspectors, despite claims of exclusive jurisdiction for specialized units.

JUDGMENT :

Chittaranjan Dash, J.

1. Heard learned counsels for both the parties.

2. By means of this application, the Petitioner seeks to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No.309 of 2019 arising out of Kumbharpada P.S. Case No.27 of 2019 registered under Sections 465 , 469 and 500 of the IPC read with Section 66 (C) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which is pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Puri.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 23.02.2019, one Biswajit Pattanaik lodged a written report before the Inspector-in- Charge, Kumbharpada Police Station, Puri, alleging that on 21.02.2019 at about 9:21 P.M. the present Petitioner, Jayanta Kumar Das, had uploaded on Facebook a forged electronic record by editing his photograph and posting certain defamatory and derogatory remarks with an intention to malign his reputation in public. It was alleged that the Petitioner circulated the same to different groups and individuals, thereby tarnishing the social prestige of the informant. On the basis of the report, Kumbharpada P.S. Case No.27 of 2019 was registered, and investigation was taken up.

4. During investigation, incriminating materials were seized, including documents relating to the alleged social media posts. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the Petitioner under Sections 465 , 469, 500 IPC and Section 66 (C) of the I.T. Act, on the basis of which cognizance was taken by the learned S.D.J.M., Puri.

5. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the entire proceeding is vitiated for want of jurisdiction. He contended that the offences alleged against the Petitioner pertain to cyber-crime, namely creation of forged electronic records, misuse of Facebook ID, and uploading of morphed and defamatory images, which are offences exclusively governed by the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000. He urged that in view of the Home Department Notification No.36478-HOME-DA1-CRTN2-0166/2017 dated 22.09.2017, published in the Odisha Gazette, the Cyber Crime P.S. at CID, Crime Branch, Odisha has been vested with exclusive jurisdiction to investigate offences under the I.T. Act throughout the State. Thus, the local police station, like Kumbharpada P.S., had no authority to register or investigate the case. It is further submitted that continuation of the proceeding on the basis of an investigation carried out by an incompetent and unauthorised agency is an abuse of the process of Court. He placed his reliance on the ratio of Sharat Babu Digumarti Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi , (2017) 2 SCC 18 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that once an offence falls within the scope of the special statute, the provisions of the general law cannot be simultaneously invoked. Mr. Mohanty accordingly argued that the cognizance taken on the basis of such an investigation is without jurisdiction and the chargesheet submitted by the Kumbharpada P.S. is unsustainable in law, and hence the entire criminal proceeding is liable to be quashed.

6. Mr. S. K. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for O.P. No.2–Complainant, argues on the basis of the RTI information received from the CID, CB, Odisha, that the plea of the Petitioner regarding lack of jurisdiction is misconceived. He points out that while the 2004 Notification had declared the CID, CB Cyber Crime P.S. at Cuttack to have jurisdiction throughout the State, subsequent notifications, including the Governme