Local Police Stations Can Also Investigate Cyber Crimes, CID-CB Doesn't Have Exclusive Jurisdiction: Orissa High Court

In an important ruling, the Orissa High Court has clarified that the Crime Investigation Department, Crime Branch (Cyber Crime) ('CID-CB') is not the only investigating body empowered to probe cyber/IT related offences, rather the local police stations can also investigate such offences subject to the condition that the Investigating Officer (IO) is not below the rank of 'Inspector'.

Interpreting the interplay between multiples government notifications alongside Section 78 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 ('the IT Act'), which provides that a police officer not below the rank of Inspector shall investigate any offence under the Act, the single bench of Justice Chittaranjan Dash held –

“The statutory scheme, the Government Notifications of 2004, 2017 and 2021, and the clarifications from CID, CB Cyber P.S., all point towards a harmonious interpretation that while CID Cyber P.S. retains concurrent jurisdiction across the State, local police stations headed by Inspectors are not divested of competence to investigate cyber offences. The expression 'exclusive jurisdiction' in the 2017 Notification cannot be read so as to obliterate the concurrent jurisdiction expressly preserved in the same sentence, nor can it override the clear mandate of Section 78 of the I.T. Act.”

Briefly put, the complainant lodged a written report on February 23, 2019 alleging that the petitioner had uploaded a forged electronic material attaching his morphed photograph on Facebook along with certain defamatory and derogatory remarks with an intention to malign his reputation.

Upon receipt of such complaint, a case was registered and investigation was carried out by the local police of Kumbharpada police station. At the end of the probe, a charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner under Sections 465, 469 and 500 of IPC read with Section 66(C) of the IT Act. Cognizance was taken by the SDJM, Puri. The petitioner, being aggrived, filed this petition under Section 482, CrPC to quash the entire proceeding.

The main ground of challenge was regarding jurisdiction of local police to investigate the case. A notification issued in the year 2017 by the Department of Home was cited to urge that the CID-CB has been vested with the exclusive jurisdiction to investigate offences under the IT Act and therefore, the local police station had no authority to register or investigate the case. Resultantly, continuation of proceeding on the basis of a faulty investigation is unwarranted.

Ergo, the question which arose for consideration was whether the CID-CB is exclusively empowered to investigate all the cases involving IT offences or the local police stations also enjoy concurrent jurisdiction to probe such cases.

To answer the aforesaid question, Justice Dash referred to Sections 78 and 80 of the IT Act. Section 78 mandates that no police officer below the rank of 'Inspector' shall be empowered to investigate any offence under the Act and Section 80 confers power upon an officer not below the rank of Inspector to enter, search and arrest without warrant in respect of offences under the Act.

“These provisions, when read together, clearly indicate that 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. Therefore, the jurisdictional bar is not territorial in nature but functional, rooted in the rank of the officer investigating the case,” he held.

Much emphasis was laid by the petitioner on the 2017 notification issued by the Home Department which read as follows –

“The existing Cyber Crime Police Station at CID, Crime Branch, Odisha, Cuttack which has earlier been notified to have the jurisdiction all over the State will now have exclusive jurisdiction over rest of the Police Districts along with concurrent jurisdiction all over the State and all the Cyber Crime Police Stations shall function operationally and administratively under State CID, Crime Branch.”

The Court construed the above phrase to mean that the Cyber Crime Police Station at CID, CB, Cuttack shall have exclusive jurisdiction over such police districts where no specialised Cyber Police Stations has been established and at the same time, it shall retain concurrent jurisdiction with other police stations all over the State.

“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, rendering it inconsistent with the spirit of law. Hence, the 2017 Notification does not exclude jurisdiction of general police stations manned by Inspectors, rather, it reinforces the supervisory role of CID Cyber P.S. while recognising concurrent competence of other stations,” it added.

A clarification issued by the IIC, CID, CB, Cyber Crime Police Station was also relied upon by the Court to reinforce the above position of law. Accordingly, it held the investigation carried out by the IIC of the Kumbharpada Police Station not bad in the eyes of law for want of jurisdiction, since it also satisfies the mandate under Section 78 of the Act.

As a corollary, the petition was dismissed being devoid of any merit.

Case Title: Jayanta Kumar Das v. State of Odisha

Case No: CRLMC No. 473 of 2022

Date of Judgment: August 22, 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Shivsankar Mohanty, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. S.K. Mishra, Sr. Advocate for private OP; Ms. S. Mohanty, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 112

Click Here To Read/Download Order