High Court of Orissa
Case Details
IN THE HIG E HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 473 of 2022 Jayanta Kumar D ar Das …. Petitioner Mr. Shivsankar sankar Mohanty, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Oppos pposite Parties S. K. Mishra, Mr. S. K ate for O.P No.2 Senior Advocate for S. Mohanty, Ms. S. for the State Addl. P.P. fo CORAM: THE HON’BLE BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN D JAN DASH Date of Judgment: 22.08.2025 Chittaranjan Dash, ash, J. 1. 2. Heard learn rd learned counsels for both the parties. By means eans of this application, the Petitioner seek r seeks to invoke the inherent jurisdi jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 o n 482 of the Code of Criminal Proc l Procedure, 1973 for quashing the entir entire criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No.309 of 2019 arisin in G arising out of Kumbharpada P.S a P.S. Case No.27 of 2019 registered und d under Sections 465, 469 and 50 nd 500 of the IPC read with Section 66 on 66(C) of the Information Techn Technology Act, 2000, which is pending nding before the learned S.D.J.M., P .J.M., Puri. CRLMC No. 473 of 2 of 2022 Page 1 of 11 3. The brief brief facts of the case are that on 23.02 23.02.2019, one Biswajit Pattanaik tanaik lodged a written report before the In the Inspector-in- Charge, Kumbha mbharpada Police Station, Puri, allegin alleging that on 21.02.2019 at ab at about 9:21 P.M. the present Petitione etitioner, Jayanta Kumar Das, had u had uploaded on Facebook a forged electr electronic record by editing his ph his photograph and posting certain defam defamatory and derogatory remark remarks with an intention to malign his re his reputation in public. It was all as alleged that the Petitioner circulated th ated the same to different groups oups and individuals, thereby tarnishing shing the social prestige of the info he informant. On the basis of the report, Ku rt, Kumbharpada P.S. Case No.27 o.27 of 2019 was registered, and investi investigation was taken up. 4. During inv ng investigation, incriminating materials w ials were seized, including docume ocuments relating to the alleged social m cial media posts. After completion o etion of investigation, charge sheet was filed s filed against the Petitioner under S nder Sections 465, 469, 500 IPC and Sectio Section 66(C) of the I.T. Act, on th , on the basis of which cognizance was ta was taken by the learned S.D.J.M., P .J.M., Puri. 5.
Legal Reasoning
tronic evidence, a prima facie case was well s well established against the Petition etitioner for the offences under Sections 46 ns 465, 469, 500 CRLMC No. 473 of 2 of 2022 Page 4 of 11 IPC read with Se ith Section 66(C) of the I.T. Act, and a and accordingly Charge Sheet No.1 et No.185 dated 31.07.2020 was submitted. itted. It is further highlighted in the in the affidavit that the Petitioner is a habitua habitual offender, having antecedent cedents in multiple criminal cases registere gistered earlier at Kumbharpada P.S P.S., and therefore the plea that t that the present proceeding is vitia is vitiated by lack of jurisdiction is wholly holly untenable. On these ground rounds, it was urged that the CRLMC LMC application deserves to be dism be dismissed. 8. Having he ing heard learned counsel for the parties a rties and perused the materials on re s on record, this Court finds it necessary to f ry to first address the jurisdictional o ional objection raised by the Petitioner, inasm , inasmuch as the maintainability of lity of the present prosecution hinges upon w upon whether the investigation cond conducted by Kumbharpada P.S. suffers fro fers from inherent lack of jurisdictio sdiction. For such purpose, it is essential t ntial to carefully dissect the statuto tatutory foundation under the Information T ation Technology Act, 2000, the se the series of Government Notifications iss ns issued in the State of Odisha, an sha, and the clarifications subsequently furni furnished by the competent authorit uthorities. 9. At the outs e outset, the statutory scheme itself pr elf provides the foundational answ l answer. For better appreciation, Sections 78 and 80 of the Information Te ion Technology Act, 2000 is produced as bel as below – to offences investigate Power Po “78. Notwithsta Criminal P not below offence und 80. Power enter, sear – ences. e Code of ithstanding anything contained in the Cod lice officer inal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), a police of stigate any elow the rank of Inspector shall investigate ce under this Act. Power of police officer and other officer r, search, etc.– officers to CRLMC No. 473 of 2 of 2022 Page 5 of 11 the Central Government or a n the Code any police r any other r a State ernment in search and herein who itted or of ny offence otwithstanding anything contained in the C (1) Notwit riminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), any p of Crimina officer, not er, not below the rank of a Inspector, or any er of officer of ernment authorised by the Central Governme Governmen behalf may enter any public place and search this behalf t without warrant any person found therein arrest with asonably suspected of having committed o is reasonab mitting or of being about to commit any off committing r this Act. under this A Explanatio the expres conveyance intended fo (2) Where (1) by an officer sha the person jurisdiction of a police (3) The pro 1973 (2 of this section entry, searc here any person is arrested under sub-se by an officer other than a police officer, er shall, without unnecessary delay, take or person arrested before a magistrate ha diction in the case or before the officer-in- police station. Procedure, he provisions of the Code of Criminal Proce ovisions of (2 of 1974) shall, subject to the provision tion to any section, apply, so far as may be, in relation to ” , search or arrest, made under this section.” ation. –For the purposes of this sub-sec expression ―public place includes any p eyance, any hotel, any shop or any other p ded for use by, or accessible to the public. section ficer, such ake or send ate having -charge section, any public other place 10. The provis provision mandates that no police officer ficer below the rank of Inspector ctor shall investigate any offence under th r this Act. This provision creates reates a rank-based safeguard, ensuring th ing that offences under the I.T. Ac T. Act, which often involve technical appr l appreciation of electronic records ecords, are investigated only by experience erienced officers. Section 80 further urther confers power upon an officer not belo ot below the rank of Inspector to en to enter, search, and arrest without warran arrant in respect of offences under under the Act. These provisions, when rea en read together, clearly indicate th cate that the I.T. Act does not divest gen st general police stations of compe competence to investigate; rather, it cond conditions such CRLMC No. 473 of 2 of 2022 Page 6 of 11 competence by pr by prescribing the minimum rank of the In the Investigating Officer. Therefore refore, the jurisdictional bar is not territoria rritorial in nature but functional, roo al, rooted in the rank of the officer invest investigating the case. 11. ing Turning to t tions, the Government Notifications, the State Government vide t vide Notification dated 06.07.2004 had d had declared the Cyber Crime P.S. P.S. at CID, CB, Cuttack to be a Police S olice Station with jurisdiction over over the whole State of Odisha. This w This was further supplemented by d by the Home Department Notification tion No.36478- HOME-DA1-CRT CRTN2-0166/2017 dated 22.09.2017, 017, which is heavily relied upo ed upon by the Petitioner. The final paragr paragraph of the said notification, h tion, however, deserves to be reproduced fo ced for clarity. It reads as: “The exist Crime Bra been notifi will now h Police Dis over the St shall func under State 12. Much emp existing Cyber Crime Police Station at Branch, Odisha, Cuttack which has ea otified to have the jurisdiction all over the ow have exclusive jurisdiction over rest o Districts along with concurrent jurisdictio e State and all the Cyber Crime Police Sta function operationally and administra State CID, Crime Branch.” at CID, s earlier the State est of the iction all e Stations istratively h emphasis has been placed by the Petitione etitioner upon the words “exclusive usive jurisdiction,” but this Court is of the of the considered view that the sam he same cannot be read in isolation. The . The very same sentence preserv reserves the expression “along with with concurrent jurisdiction all ove all over the State.” 13. The impor import of the above referred phrase is clear s clear that while the Cyber Crime P rime Police Station at CID, CB, Cuttack is v ck is vested with CRLMC No. 473 of 2 of 2022 Page 7 of 11 exclusive jurisdict risdiction over such Police Districts wher where no other specialised Cyber Cyber P.S. has been established, it sim it simultaneously retains concurrent urrent jurisdiction with other police stations ations all over the State. This concur concurrent jurisdiction acts as a statutory s tory safety-valve and ensures that th that the general mandate of Section 78 of the of the I.T. Act is not rendered null d null and void. If the interpretation urg on urged by the Petitioner is acce s accepted that only CID Cyber Crime rime P.S. could investigate all cyb all cyber offences, it would render the wo he words “along with concurrent ent jurisdiction all over the State” redu ” redundant and would create a m e a monopoly that would be impractical, r tical, rendering it inconsistent with with the spirit of law. Hence, the 2017 N 017 Notification does not exclude j clude jurisdiction of general police stations ons manned by Inspectors, rather, rather, it reinforces the supervisory role of le of CID Cyber P.S. while recogni cognising concurrent competence of other st ther stations. 14. The positio position becomes further clarified in light o light of the Home Department No Notification No. HOME-DA1-CR CRTN1-0005- 2021/44843/D&A /D&A dated 18.12.2021, whereby multi multiple Cyber Crime and Econom conomic Offences Police Stations were cre ere created at the district level. By el. By this Notification, the State reco recognised the increasing volume olume of cyber offences and vested local c ocal cyber police stations with terr th territorial jurisdiction while still pres l preserving the overarching super supervisory role of CID, CB. More im ore importantly, subsequent clarific clarification furnished by the Inspector-in-Ch Charge, CID, CB Cyber Crime Crime Police Station, pursuant to an R an RTI query, explicitly affirms rms the interpretation discussed hereinab reinabove. It has been clarified by t d by the IIC, CID, CB Cyber P.S. to the D the D.S.P. (Law Section), CID, CB D, CB, Cuttack that: CRLMC No. 473 of 2 of 2022 Page 8 of 11 “As per th 78 empow can investi It empowe Charge on investigate r the Information Technology Act 2000 Se powered that not below the rank of Insp vestigate IT Act offences in his/her jurisdic owers the Police Station having Inspect e on or above the rank of Inspector gate IT Act cases. 0 Section Inspector isdiction. pector in ctor can As per IT case No.27 Section 66 rank of an prosecutio r IT Act 2000 if Kumbharpada Police St o.27 dtd. 23.02.2019 u/s 465/469/500 IPC n 66-C IT Act is investigated by not below f an Inspector of Police, there is no har ution or investigation of the said case.” e Station IPC r/w below the harm in 15. This clari clarification by the designated Cyber yber P.S. itself underscores that j that jurisdiction under the I.T. Act is not s not territorially exclusive to the o the CID, CB Cyber Crime P.S., b , but extends concurrently to lo to local police stations, subject only to nly to the rank qualification under under Section 78. 16. In the present case, the p closes the record discloses that the investigation was was conducted by the then Inspector-in in-Charge of Kumbharpada P.S da P.S., who was statutorily competent und nt under Section 78. Therefore, the re, the foundational requirement under th der the I.T. Act stands satisfied. A ied. Accordingly, the jurisdictional challeng allenge raised by the Petitioner can er cannot be sustained. The statutory sc ory scheme, the Government Noti t Notifications of 2004, 2017 and 2021 2021, and the clarifications from s from CID, CB Cyber P.S., all point point towards a harmonious interp interpretation that while CID Cyber P ber P.S. retains concurrent jurisdic urisdiction across the State, local police stati e stations headed by Inspectors are rs are not divested of competence to invest investigate cyber offences. The ex he expression “exclusive jurisdiction” in n” in the 2017 Notification canno cannot be read so as to obliterate the e the concurrent jurisdiction expres expressly preserved in the same sentence, tence, nor can it CRLMC No. 473 of 2 of 2022 Page 9 of 11 override the clear clear mandate of Section 78 of the I.T. A I.T. Act. On the contrary, the notif e notifications and clarifications demonstra onstrate that the investigation by by Kumbharpada P.S. was lawful a ful and within jurisdiction. 17. To summ summarise, this Court, therefore, com comes to the considered concl conclusion that garding the objection regarding lack of jurisdiction on th on the part of Kumbharpada P.S. is unte s untenable. The investigation havin having been carried out by an Inspector of tor of Police, the statutory requirem uirement under Section 78 of the I.T. Act, 2 Act, 2000 stands satisfied. The No he Notifications of 2004 and 2017, whe , when read in entirety, particular ticularly the expression “concurrent jurisdict risdiction all over the State,” as we as well as the subsequent 2021 Notificatio tification and the clarification issued issued by the CID, CB Cyber Crime P.S. P.S., all make it abundantly clear clear that local police stations are not not deprived of competence to inv to investigate cyber offences. The plea o plea of exclusive jurisdiction of CID of CID Cyber Crime P.S. to the exclusion usion of all other police stations is, t ns is, therefore, without merit. 18. At this jun his juncture, it is necessary to emphasise e that all the other grounds raise s raised by the Petitioner touching upon alle on alleged defects in collection of e n of electronic evidence, alleged misidenti sidentification of Facebook account ccounts, or questions regarding the admi admissibility of materials, are matt e matters which are essentially defences avai es available to the accused at the stag he stage of trial. Such disputed questions of ns of fact cannot be adjudicated in p ed in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. r.P.C., which are intended to be exe be exercised sparingly and only where the p e the proceedings are manifestly with e in law. ly without jurisdiction or unsustainable in law CRLMC No. 473 of 2 of 2022 Page 10 of 11 19. It is made made clear that this Court has not expresse pressed any view on the merits on n the allegations or on the evidentiary v tiary value of the materials collected llected. Those issues remain open to be ur be urged before the trial court, whi rt, which shall consider them in accordance w ance with law. 20. In view o iew of the above, the grounds propound pounded by the Petitioner do not o not warrant interference under Section 4 tion 482 Cr.P.C. The CRLMC app application stands dismissed, according ordingly. Interim order, if any, stand , stands vacated. (Chittaranjan Da n Dash) Judge Bijay Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BIJAY KETAN SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 24-Aug-2025 13:12:43 CRLMC No. 473 of 2 of 2022 Page 11 of 11
Arguments
Mr. Moha Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petition etitioner, submits that the entire pro ire proceeding is vitiated for want of juris f jurisdiction. He contended that the at the offences alleged against the Petitione titioner pertain to cyber-crime, name , namely creation of forged electronic recor c records, misuse of Facebook ID, an ID, and uploading of morphed and defamato famatory images, which are offence ffences exclusively governed by the provis provisions of the Information Techn Technology Act, 2000. He urged that in v in view of the Home Departmen artment Notification No.36478-HOME-DA DA1-CRTN2- CRLMC No. 473 of 2 of 2022 Page 2 of 11 0166/2017 dated 2 ated 22.09.2017, published in the Odisha G isha Gazette, the Cyber Crime P.S. P.S. at CID, Crime Branch, Odisha has b has been vested with exclusive juri ve jurisdiction to investigate offences under under the I.T. Act throughout the State. Thus, the the local police sta ce station, like Kumbharpada P.S da P.S., had no authority to register or inve or investigate the case. It is further rther submitted that continuation of the pro he proceeding on the basis of an in an investigation carried out by an incom incompetent and unauthorised agen agency is an abuse of the process of Court Court. He placed his reliance on th on the ratio of Sharat Babu Digumarti rti Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (2 , (2017) 2 SCC 18, wherein the Hon’bl Hon’ble Supreme Court held that on hat once an offence falls within the scope of ope of the special statute, the provisi provisions of the general law cannot be sim e simultaneously invoked. Mr. Mo r. Mohanty accordingly argued that the t the cognizance taken on the basis e basis of such an investigation is without thout jurisdiction and the chargesh argesheet submitted by the Kumbharpad harpada P.S. is unsustainable in la le in law, and hence the entire criminal pro nal proceeding is liable to be quashe uashed. 6. Mr. S. K S. K. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate, ap , appearing for O.P. No.2–Compla omplainant, argues on the basis of the RTI i RTI information received from the m the CID, CB, Odisha, that the plea of the of the Petitioner regarding lack of ck of jurisdiction is misconceived. He poin e points out that while the 2004 No 04 Notification had declared the CID, CB C CB Cyber Crime P.S. at Cuttack to h ck to have jurisdiction throughout the State, State, subsequent , notifications, including inc the Government of Odis Odisha Home Department Notifi Notification dated 18.12.2021, have create created multiple Cyber Crime & E e & Economic Offences Police Stations at ns at the district level, including on ing one at Puri itself, with territorial jurisd jurisdiction over CRLMC No. 473 of 2 of 2022 Page 3 of 11 the district. More More importantly, the RTI reply clarifies larifies that apart from the designate signated Cyber Crime Police Stations, any o , any other police station in the Stat e State is competent to register and invest investigate cases under the I.T. Act T. Act, provided the investigation is condu conducted by an officer not below elow the rank of Inspector. Since in the pr the present case, the investigation ation was carried out by the Inspector-in in-Charge of Kumbharpada P.S. P.S., the requirement under Section 78 of 78 of the I.T. Act is satisfied. It is f It is further contended that the RTI reply reply specifically affirms that there i there is “no harm” in prosecution or investig stigation of the present case by Ku by Kumbharpada P.S., as the same was inve as investigated by an Inspector. The r. Therefore, the allegation of lack of jur of jurisdiction is unfounded, and the and the investigation and charge sheet canno cannot be faulted on that score. 7. Ms. S. M S. Mohanty, learned Additional Public ublic Prosecutor, placed the affidav affidavit submitted by the Deputy Superin uperintendent of Police-In-Charge arge, wherein it is contended that the invest investigation was carried out strictly strictly in accordance with law. It is point pointed out that after registration ration of Kumbharpada P.S. Case No.27 No.27 of 2019, investigation was was conducted by the then Inspector-in-C Charge, who being of the rank rank of Inspector, was fully competent und ent under Section 78 of the I.T. Ac Act, 2000 to investigate the matter. Ms Ms. Mohanty submits that the af he affidavit clarifies that there is no bar in t bar in the I.T. Act or in the relevant levant notifications upon the general police police to register and investigate cas ate cases under the said Act, so long as the o s the officer is not below the rank of ank of Inspector. After collection of docum documentatary as well as electronic