S. 78 IT Act Doesn't Oust Local Police Jurisdiction in Cyber Crime Cases if Investigating Officer is Inspector Rank: Orissa High Court - 2025-09-02

Local Police Stations Can Investigate Cyber Crimes, Rules Orissa High Court, Dismisses Jurisdictional Challenge

Cuttack, Odisha – The Orissa High Court, in a significant ruling, has clarified that local police stations are competent to register and investigate offences under the Information Technology Act, 2000, provided the investigation is conducted by an officer not below the rank of Inspector. Justice Chittaranjan Dash held that the jurisdiction of specialized Cyber Crime Police Stations is concurrent, not exclusive, and does not oust the authority of general police stations.

The Court dismissed a petition filed by Jayanta Kumar Das, who sought to quash criminal proceedings against him for allegedly posting a forged and defamatory photograph on Facebook.

Background of the Case

The case originated from a complaint filed on February 23, 2019, at Kumbharpada Police Station in Puri. The complainant, Biswajit Pattanaik, alleged that Jayanta Kumar Das had edited his photograph, added derogatory remarks, and circulated it on Facebook to tarnish his reputation. Consequently, the Kumbharpada police registered a case under Sections 465 (forgery), 469 (forgery for harming reputation), and 500 (defamation) of the IPC, along with Section 66 (C) of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000. After an investigation by the Inspector-in-Charge, a charge sheet was filed.

The petitioner, Jayanta Kumar Das, approached the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC, arguing that the entire proceeding was invalid due to a lack of jurisdiction.

Arguments from Both Sides

Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner's counsel contended that cyber-crime offences fall exclusively under the purview of the Information Technology Act, a special statute. Citing a 2017 Odisha Home Department Notification, he argued that the Cyber Crime Police Station at CID, Crime Branch, Odisha, has "exclusive jurisdiction" over such matters. Therefore, the investigation by Kumbharpada Police Station was unauthorized and illegal, making the subsequent charge sheet and cognizance unsustainable in law.

State's Argument: The State and the complainant countered this claim, arguing that the petitioner's interpretation was flawed. They presented an RTI reply from the CID, Crime Branch, which clarified that any police station in the state is competent to investigate IT Act cases, as long as the investigation is handled by an officer of Inspector rank or higher, as mandated by Section 78 of the IT Act. Since the Inspector-in-Charge of Kumbharpada P.S. conducted the investigation, the legal requirement was met. They further pointed out that the 2017 notification itself mentions "concurrent jurisdiction all over the State," indicating that the specialized unit's authority runs parallel to, and does not eliminate, the jurisdiction of local police.

Court’s Legal Analysis and Precedents

Justice Chittaranjan Dash meticulously analyzed the statutory framework of the IT Act and the relevant government notifications to resolve the jurisdictional question.

Statutory Interpretation: The Court focused on Section 78 of the IT Act, which states: “Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), a police officer not below the rank of Inspector shall investigate any offence under this Act.”

The judgment emphasized that this provision establishes a rank-based safeguard, not a territorial one. The Court observed: > "The provision mandates that no police officer below the rank of Inspector shall investigate any offence under this Act. This provision creates a rank-based safeguard... the I.T. 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."

Harmonious Reading of Notifications: The Court scrutinized the 2017 Notification relied upon by the petitioner. It noted that while the notification uses the term "exclusive jurisdiction," the very same sentence also states that the Cyber Crime P.S. has "concurrent jurisdiction all over the State." The Court held that these phrases must be read harmoniously.

> "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 concluded that the term "exclusive jurisdiction" applied to police districts where no specialized cyber units existed, while the "concurrent jurisdiction" clause preserved the authority of all competent local police stations across Odisha. This interpretation was further supported by a 2021 notification creating more district-level cybercrime stations and an explicit clarification from the CID itself.

Final Decision and Its Implications

The High Court found the petitioner's jurisdictional challenge to be untenable. It affirmed that the investigation conducted by the Inspector of Kumbharpada Police Station was lawful and fully compliant with Section 78 of the IT Act.

Dismissing the petition, the Court stated: > "This Court, therefore, comes to the considered conclusion that the objection regarding lack of jurisdiction on the part of Kumbharpada P.S. is untenable. The investigation having been carried out by an Inspector of Police, the statutory requirement under Section 78 of the I.T. Act, 2000 stands satisfied."

The Court clarified that other issues raised by the petitioner, concerning the merits of the evidence, were matters for the trial court to decide. This judgment reinforces the operational authority of local police forces in tackling the rising tide of cybercrime, ensuring that investigations are not stalled or invalidated on narrow technical grounds of jurisdiction.