The Punjab & Haryana High Court has reinforced the mandatory obligation on State Governments to transfer cybercrime investigations involving the Information Technology Act, 2000 to the CBI, in compliance with the Supreme Court’s binding directions. This ruling clarifies that registration of an FIR under the IT Act, even when coupled with other penal provisions, triggers an automatic duty to secure sanction under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Sukhmander Singh, sought transfer of investigation in FIR No.25 dated 16.06.2025, registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, Jalandhar City, under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The FIR pertains to alleged cyber-enabled offences involving digital fraud and unauthorized access. The petitioner contended that the nature of the crime - being a pan-India cybercrime - warrants CBI intervention under the Supreme Court’s recent interim directions.
Key Facts
- FIR No.25 was registered on 16.06.2025 at Cyber Crime Police Station, Jalandhar
- The offence involves alleged misuse of digital platforms under Section 66(D) of the IT Act, 2000, which criminalizes sending offensive messages through communication services
- The investigation was being conducted by the State Police Cyber Crime Unit
- No prior request for CBI takeover had been made by the State Government
- The petitioner filed the writ petition on 26.12.2025 seeking transfer of investigation to CBI
Procedural History
- 16.06.2025: FIR No.25 registered under Sections 318(4) of BNS, 2023 and Section 66(D) of IT Act, 2000
- 26.12.2025: Criminal Writ Petition (CRWP-13572-2025) filed before the Punjab & Haryana High Court
- 17.03.2026: Hearing conducted via video conferencing; parties submitted arguments
- 17.03.2026: Judgment delivered orally by Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner
The petitioner, represented by Senior Advocate Pawan Kumar, relied on the Supreme Court’s order dated 15.01.2026 in Suo Moto Writ Petition No.3/2025, which explicitly mandated that whenever an FIR is registered under the IT Act, 2000 in conjunction with other penal laws, the State Government must accord sanction under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 to enable CBI takeover. The petitioner argued that the cybercrime in question had interstate and transnational dimensions, making State-level investigation inadequate.
For the Respondent
The State of Punjab, represented by Additional Advocate General Athar Ahmed, conceded that Clause (iv) of Para 6 of the Supreme Court’s order applied to the present case. However, the State contended that the investigation had been concluded and the charge sheet under Section 193 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) had already been filed. Despite this, the State did not oppose the transfer, acknowledging the binding nature of the Supreme Court’s directions.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought an order directing the State of Punjab to immediately transfer the investigation of FIR No.25 dated 16.06.2025 to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), with all case records and evidence, and to secure sanction under Section 6 of the DSPE Act, 1946.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Supreme Court’s direction in Suo Moto Writ Petition No.3/2025, mandating CBI takeover in all FIRs involving the IT Act, 2000, applies even after the filing of a charge sheet, and whether the State’s obligation to secure sanction under Section 6 of the DSPE Act is triggered irrespective of the stage of investigation.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on Clause (iv) of Para 6 of the Supreme Court’s order, which states unequivocally that "whenever an FIR has been registered for investigation under the penal laws along with the Information Technology Act, 2000, sanction under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 shall be accorded so that the CBI can undertake a comprehensive action in respect of the identified cybercrimes, on a pan India basis." The petitioner argued that the phrase "whenever an FIR has been registered" is prospective and procedural in nature, and does not contemplate any temporal limitation. The Supreme Court’s directive was framed as a structural reform to ensure uniformity and expertise in cybercrime investigations, and its application cannot be defeated by procedural milestones like filing of a charge sheet.
For the Respondent
The State conceded the applicability of Clause (iv) but argued that since the investigation had concluded and the charge sheet had been submitted, transfer of investigation would be redundant and disruptive. The State contended that the CBI could review the file and initiate independent proceedings if necessary, without requiring formal transfer. However, the State did not dispute the binding nature of the Supreme Court’s order.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a textual and purposive interpretation of Clause (iv) of Para 6 of the Supreme Court’s order. It emphasized that the directive was not a mere recommendation but a binding constitutional mandate issued under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure uniformity and effectiveness in combating cybercrime across India. The Court noted that the Supreme Court had explicitly framed the direction to overcome jurisdictional fragmentation and lack of technical capacity in State police forces.
"All the State Governments and Union Territories are directed that wherever an FIR has been registered for investigation under the penal laws along with the Information Technology Act, 2000, sanction under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 shall be accorded so that the CBI can undertake a comprehensive action in respect of the identified cybercrimes, on a pan India basis."
The Court held that the phrase "whenever an FIR has been registered" is not qualified by any temporal condition. The obligation arises at the moment of registration and continues until the investigation is completed or transferred. The filing of a charge sheet does not extinguish the State’s duty to secure sanction for CBI takeover, particularly where the nature of the crime demands centralized, expert handling. The Court further observed that the Supreme Court’s directions were issued to prevent dilution of investigations by local biases or technical inadequacies, and that the CBI’s involvement is not merely procedural but substantive.
The Court rejected the State’s argument that transfer would be redundant. It held that the CBI’s role under the Supreme Court’s order is not limited to initiating fresh investigations but includes reviewing, supplementing, and, where necessary, re-investigating cases to ensure accountability and evidentiary integrity. The Court also noted that the CBI’s expertise in digital forensics and inter-state coordination is indispensable in cybercrime cases.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court directed the State of Punjab to immediately hand over the investigation of FIR No.25 dated 16.06.2025, registered under Sections 318(4) of BNS, 2023 and Section 66(D) of the IT Act, 2000, to the Central Bureau of Investigation. The State was directed to secure sanction under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 within seven days of the judgment. All case records, digital evidence, and investigation files were to be transferred forthwith. The CBI was directed to complete its review and submit a status report to the Court within 30 days.
What This Means For Similar Cases
CBI Transfer Is Mandatory, Not Discretionary
- Practitioners must now treat any FIR involving the IT Act, 2000 as triggering an automatic statutory obligation under Section 6 of the DSPE Act
- State police cannot delay or deny CBI takeover on grounds of investigation nearing completion
- The Supreme Court’s directive overrides any State policy or internal procedure
Charge Sheet Filing Does Not Bar CBI Intervention
- Even if a charge sheet has been filed, the CBI retains the right to take over the investigation
- The CBI may re-examine evidence, summon additional witnesses, or initiate independent proceedings
- Defence counsel must anticipate CBI involvement even post-charge sheet and preserve all digital evidence
Jurisdictional Boundaries Are Irrelevant in Cybercrime
- Cybercrimes are inherently pan-India and transnational; local police forces lack the technical capacity
- Courts will not entertain objections based on territorial jurisdiction of investigation
- Petitioners in similar cases may now file writs under Article 226 with greater confidence of success
