Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CHITTARANJAN DASH
Jayanta Kumar Das – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts surrounding the case initiation and accusations. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding jurisdiction and investigation authority. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's analysis of statutory provisions and jurisdiction. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. ratio on jurisdictional objections and statutory interpretation. (Para 17) |
| 5. final conclusion dismissing the petition. (Para 20) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsels for both the parties.
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.
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.
The Inspector of Police has jurisdiction to file a report under the Information Technology Act, and the determination of obscenity is reserved for the Trial Court.
The court held that prima facie evidence supported the framing of charges under the IPC and SC & ST Act, affirming that lack of territorial jurisdiction does not invalidate the investigation.
Invoking its extraordinary power under Article 226 of Constitution, Court has no jurisdiction to examine correctness or otherwise of allegation.
The court emphasized the importance of fair and just investigation, clarified the power of further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and highlighted the non-compou....
The Information Technology Act, 2000 has overriding effect over the Indian Penal Code, 1860, making it the exclusive legal framework for offences related to electronic data.
The court emphasized that the inherent power of the High Court should not be used to stifle a legitimate prosecution and that the question of mala fides is not relevant if the complaint is correct an....
The power of quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases where no cognizable offense is disclosed in the FIR.
Point of Law – Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot assume such jurisdiction and put an end to the process of trial provided under the law. It is also settled by the Apex Court....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
