With the rise of digital technology, Cyber Crimes are becoming rampant in the society. It is argued by some experts that the current legal framework is insufficient to deal with the gargantuan menace of cyber crimes, and they affect the rights of the victims from different dimensions, leaving them helpless.
In this context, the Courts are duty bound to stringently enforce the criminal law to combat a menace such as this. In a recent case of bail, the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court rightly observed in a judgment that “Poor quality of investigation in I.T. related offences/cyber offences is becoming a major fault-line in the functioning of the investigations”. An investigation begins with effective reporting of such crimes, and it can be argued that the condition of reporting is also a sorry state of affairs.
Registration of First Information Report
First Information Reports are registered under Section 173 of BNSS (corresponding Section – 154 Cr.P.C.) in case of cognizable offences. In case of non-cognizable offences, one may prefer a complaint under Section 223 of BNSS (corresponding section 200 Cr.P.C.).
The Supreme Court has further interpreted the newly enacted provisions regarding registration of First Information Report and held that in case of cognizable offences punishable with imprisonment which is more than 3 years but not more than 7 years, the Investigating Officer may conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain as to whether the cognizable offence is made out or not.
Regarding the registration of the second First Information Report, the law has been culled out in the case of Imran Pratapgadhi case. To read more about this, click on the following link – https://nikhilkumaradvocate.in/registration-of-second-first-information-report-know-the-law/
Cyber Offences
In case of I.T. related offences/ Cyber Crimes, the relevant statute is the Information Technology Act, 2000. Under the Information Technology Act, 2000, chapter XI provides for offences, which criminalizes tampering with computer source documents, computer related offences, identity theft, cyber terrorism, among various other acts.
To deal with the unique nature of needs of investigation in such cases, the Parliament amended the Act and added Section 77A and Section 77B to the Act, which are as follows:
Compounding of offences.–A court of competent jurisdiction may compound offences, other than offences for which the punishment for life or imprisonment for a term exceeding three years has been provided, under this Act:
Provided that the court shall not compound such offence where the accused is, by reason of his previous conviction, liable to either enhanced punishment or to a punishment of a different kind:
Provided further that the court shall not compound any offence where such offence affects the socio economic conditions of the country or has been committed against a child below the age of 18 years or a woman.
(2) The person accused of an offence under this Act may file an application for compounding in the court in which offence is pending for trial and the provisions of sections 265B and 265C of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) shall apply.
77B. Offences with three years imprisonment to be bailable.–Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the offence punishable with imprisonment of three years and above shall be cognizable and the offence punishable with imprisonment of three years shall be bailable.
The aforesaid provisions make the offences punishable with imprisonment of three years cognizable, and as such, calling for registration of First Information Report.
Requirement of Registration of First Information Report in Cyber Crimes
In light of the discussion above, we come to a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court wherein the Court was entertaining a criminal revision against an order passed under Section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 by means of which the application of the victim was treated to be a complaint.
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Amrendra Jaiprakash Private Limited vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others has held that if the averments made in the application make out a case for cyber crime, the Magistrate, in light of the facts and circumstances of the case, must exercise his discretion wisely especially when thorough investigation by the police is required and the scope of investigation is very large and extensive.
Relevant portion of the judgment of the Court is as follows:
“In the light of the aforesaid directions if the facts narrated in the case in hand are examined, it can easily be found that the present case is subject of cyber crime. The main accused is a company having its office at Gujrat and its directors, the other co-accused persons of this case also used to sit there. Some of the facts mentioned in the complaint are of such a nature which make the scope of investigation very large and extensive which the complainant is incapable to collect and that is why the thorough investigation made by the police is required in this case. The discretion given by the Magistrate to treat the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as complaint never needs, that depends solely upon the wish of the Magistrate to pass an order for registration of the F.I.R. on such an application or to register it or to pass order to treat as a criminal complaint.”
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court further relied on Anmol Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others 2021 (1) ADJ 4000 wherein it has been held that merely because facts are in knowledge of the applicant, direction to lodge F.I.R. cannot be refused.