Karnataka HC Directs State To Operate Cyber Command Centres To Combat Cyber Crimes, Says It Would Usher New Beginnings To Tackle New Age Crime
The Karnataka High Court has asked the State Government to make operation cyber command centres, by appointing appropriate officers manning such centres in order to tackle the emergence and growth of cyber crime.A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna said “If a cyber command centre is established to combat cyber crimes and strengthen cyber security, it would usher a new beginning of...
The Karnataka High Court has asked the State Government to make operation cyber command centres, by appointing appropriate officers manning such centres in order to tackle the emergence and growth of cyber crime.
A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna said “If a cyber command centre is established to combat cyber crimes and strengthen cyber security, it would usher a new beginning of tackling the new age crime with new age investigating centres. This is the paradigm shift that is imperative.”
It added “It is only then the State will leap forward to tackle the emergence and growth of cyber crime, failing which, the citizen who has been a victim of cyber crime or cyber frauds will never get justice. Therefore, the State shall endeavour to give life to the cyber command centres or constitute a separate wing to tackle cyber crime like the CCB, which could be a cyber crime investigation bureau.”
Highlighting the need for such command centres the bench said “In this digital age, crime transcends frontiers with the click of a mouse. Information which is the life blood of modern civilization can be weaponized by a few keystrokes. Crimes are 27 thus committed by the play of keystrokes, sitting in front of a monitor. The conventional crimes like robbery, theft, breaking open the lock and stealing money have largely gone into oblivion with the emergence of the new age crime, the cyber crime.”
Stating that the rate of filing of chargesheet, in such new age crimes is only at 9%, not because the accused are not guilty, it is because the Investigating Officers are not equipped to bring those accused to books. This is due to lack of expertise in dealing with cyber crimes.
The bench urged “The State thus must recognize the existential threat and evolve, failing which, justice to those victims will become a mirage.”
Background
The directions were given while allowing a petition filed by Newspace Research And technologies Private Limited seeking a directions to constitute a Special Investigation Team to conduct, supervise and monitor investigation in case registered for offences punishable under Sections 66, 66(B) and 66(C) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) and Sections 318(2), 318(3), and 318(4) of the BNS.
The company had registered a case against its former employees accusing them of data theft, including proprietary software and designs for high-altitude drones developed by a private company which are used by Indian defence forces for border security.
The petitioner argued that Police have been influenced by a Police Officer of Rajasthan and, therefore, the accused in the case at hand were not arrested, despite registration of crime 90 days ago.
Further, the coordinate Bench while rejecting the plea for anticipatory bail has also observed that accused were necessary for custodial interrogation. Even then, the accused were not taken into custody and only when this Court passed the order, they were taken into custody.
Finally it was said “It is not a case of ordinary complaint and simple data theft. It is a case of cyber crime. He would urge that a Special Investigation Team be constituted as such cyber crimes have grown in numbers and there are no technical experts to investigate such crimes.”
The prosecution submitted that a new Investigating officer has taken over a week ago and there has been certain progress in the investigation. The Court can monitor the investigation and direct filing of the report before the concerned Court. Seeking dismissal of the petition, it was contended that there is no necessity to constitute a Special Investigation Team.
Findings:
Court noted that pursuant to registration of crime, a team of officers is formed by CEN Police Station and the team travels to Noida for the purpose of arrest of accused No.1. Accused No.1 is arrested. The arrest should have led to bringing the accused to Bangalore and continued the investigation. Strangely, the Investigating Officer issues a notice under Section 35 of the BNSS.
The court said “Once the arrest has happened, it is ununderstandable as to how the Investigating Officer has issued a notice under Section 35(3) for appearance. What ought to have been custodial interrogation, leads to appearance before the Investigating Officer. It is the first needle of suspicion with regard to a fake investigation being conducted in the case at hand.”
It was stated that the order rejecting the anticipatory bail by the coordinate bench came to be passed on 18-03-2025. The crime was registered on 24-12-2024. The anticipatory bail sought by the accused before the Court of Sessions came to be rejected on 13-01-2025. There were no protective orders granted. Notwithstanding the same, the accused were not taken into custody.
Following which the accused filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., seeking quashment of proceedings which was pending but no stay was granted, not even protective orders are granted. However, it is only when this Court passed an order dated 25-03-2025, the next day the accused have been taken into custody.
Court observed that though an arrest memo was drawn on 25-12-2024 that was only a paper arrest. The next day, the Investigating Officer issues Section 35(3) notice. Section 35(3) notice, is trite, would be issued only when the accused or any other person is to appear before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of examination/enquiry. If the accused had already been arrested, what should have been was custodial interrogation. But, what happens is, conversion of an arrest into Section 35(3) notice.
The bench held “All the aforesaid link, in the chain of events, would undoubtedly cast suspicion upon the conduct of a fair investigation at the hands of the Investigating Officer. It may be that the Investigating Officer has changed today, but that would not be a panacea to the present problem.”
It emphasised that “The subject crime has the colour of a cyber espionage. It is a multi-layered crime involving nuances of defence technology and concerns of national defence. Investigations into such crimes demand not merely procedural competence, but an amalgamation of technical expertise and forensic acumen.”
Thus, the bench constituted a Special Investigation Team, composed of Pranab Mohanty – IPS, Director General of Police, who shall head the Team, Bhushan Gulab Rao Borase – IPS, Nisha James – IPS to reinvestigate the case.
It said “Scales of justice must not tilt due to incompetence of Investigating Officers. If the crimes are sophisticated, the Investigating Officers too shall be.” The Special Investigation Team constituted is directed to submit its report within 3 months, from the date it is constituted, and a copy of the same be placed before this Court thereafter.
Appearance: Advocate Angad Kamath for Petitioner
AGA Rahul Cariappa K S for Respondent
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 156
Case Title: Newspace Research And Technologies Private Limited AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.8403 OF 2025