The Orissa High Court has held that local police can investigate cybercrime cases.
The bench of Justice Chittaranjan Dash has dismissed a petition filed by Jayanta Kumar Das seeking quashing of criminal proceedings against him in connection with an alleged cybercrime involving morphed images and defamatory social media posts. The investigation conducted by Kumbharpada Police Station was lawful and within its jurisdiction.
The case originated from a complaint filed by Biswajit Pattanaik on February 23, 2019, alleging that Das had uploaded a forged electronic record on Facebook by editing his photograph and posting derogatory remarks intended to tarnish his reputation. The post was allegedly circulated across groups and individuals, causing social humiliation.
On the basis of the complaint, Kumbharpada Police Station registered P.S. Case No. 27 of 2019 under Sections 465, 469, 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 66(C) of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000. Following investigation, incriminating electronic materials were seized, and a charge sheet was filed before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM), Puri.
Counsel for Das argued that the proceedings were void ab initio, as only the Cyber Crime Police Station of the Crime Branch, Cuttack, had exclusive jurisdiction to investigate offences under the IT Act. Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sharat Babu Digumarti v. Government (2017), it was contended that the general police lacked jurisdiction and that continuation of the case was an abuse of process.
Senior Advocate S. K. Mishra, appearing for the complainant, countered this claim, citing RTI replies and government notifications. He argued that while specialised cybercrime police stations exist, ordinary police stations headed by Inspectors also have concurrent jurisdiction to investigate offences under the IT Act. The State, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor S. Mohanty, further submitted that the investigation was conducted by the Inspector-in-Charge of Kumbharpada P.S., who was competent under Section 78 of the IT Act.
Justice Dash, after analyzing the statutory provisions and notifications of 2004, 2017, and 2021, concluded that section 78 of the IT Act permits any police officer not below the rank of Inspector to investigate cybercrime cases. Government notifications only confer supervisory jurisdiction upon specialised cybercrime police stations, but do not exclude concurrent jurisdiction of local police stations. The interpretation that only the CID Cyber Crime P.S. could investigate such cases would be inconsistent with the legislative intent and impractical, given the rising number of cyber offences.
The Court rejected the plea that Kumbharpada Police lacked jurisdiction, holding that the investigation was lawful since it was conducted by an Inspector.
The High Court dismissed the petition, stating, “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 IT Act stands satisfied. The plea of exclusive jurisdiction of CID Cyber Crime Police Station to the exclusion of all other police stations is without merit.”
The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations or the evidentiary value of the materials collected, leaving those issues to be decided at trial.
Case Details
Case Title: Jayanta Kumar Das Versus State
Case No.: CRLMC No. 473 of 2022
Date: 22.08.2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Shivsankar Mohanty Advocate
Counsel For Respondent: S. K. Mishra, Senior Advocate
Read More: ICAI Opens Doors for Chartered Accountants to Establish Firms in GIFT City
