This Cyber Fraud Case highlights the situation where police did not work out the case. The victim itself traced the offenders. In this case police played the role of mediator. Offenders did not return the entire money of the victim, but they agreed to return the money in instalments. This case shows the standard of investigation by the police in Uttar Pradesh. It is lower than the general enquiry of a common person.
RTI Reveals: Cyber Fraud Case in Mirzapur Resolved Through Compromise
- No Formal Deterrence/Accountability: Authorities did not register an FIR or file charges. As a result, they did not formally prosecute the accused individuals (Shivam Mishra and Pramod Kumar). This means they have no criminal record or conviction. This creates a weak precedent for accountability. It might not fully deter them or others from committing similar cyber crimes in the future.
- Lack of Transparency in Settlement: While the outcome is documented, the involved parties keep the specifics of the compromise private. This includes details like how much money the authorities returned, who returned it, and whether they applied any pressure. These details do not appear in the public police record.
- “Success” vs. “Procedure”: From a purely procedural law enforcement standpoint, a “success story” often involves the arrest. It also includes formal charge sheeting and successful prosecution of criminals. This process leads to a conviction. Closing a case via compromise, while practical, deviates from this ideal.
- Cyber Crime Trend: Cyber crime is a growing and organised problem. Solving an individual case through compromise does little to break the larger criminal network or stop the method of fraud.
Conclusion
The incident is a Pragmatic lesson for the Mirzapur Police in Cyber Fraud Case.
It is a success. They ensured immediate and total relief for the victim (getting the money back). They handled the matter swiftly.
However, the authorities do not achieve success in terms of upholding the full deterrent force of the law. The system faces no criminal prosecution against the accused. In many high-volume cyber crime jurisdictions, they consider a quick settlement efficient. They often see it as the best way to bring relief to the maximum number of victims.
Overview: What the Public Information Act Revealed
The Mirzapur Superintendent of Police office issued a recent official letter (Letter No.: J.S.U.A.-92/2024 (Online) dated December 2, 2024), disclosing the actions taken in a cyber fraud case. Yogi M P Singh, the applicant, sought this information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI). A large sum drained from a complainant’s bank account was the core issue. However, the police ultimately closed the case based on a mutual compromise between the involved parties.
The Complaint in Cyber Fraud Case: Fraudulent Withdrawal of Funds
Bindra Prasad Bind is a resident of Mirzapur, Thana- Jigna, Mirzapur. He applied to report a fraud of ₹5,72,220/- (Five Lakh Seventy-Two Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Rupees). He stated that someone fraudulently withdrew this amount from his Indian Bank savings account (A/C No. 21282335835) in multiple instalments on March 8 and 9, 2024.
How They Siphoned Off the Money
The bank statement of Bindra Prasad revealed that he transferred the money to the accounts of two individuals:
- Pramod Kumar (Bank Mitra, Bank of Baroda, Katholi Branch, Thana-Meja, Prayagraj).
- Shivam Mishra.
The complainant initially filed a report at Jigna Police Station. Then, they petitioned the Superintendent of Police. They also approached the Cyber Thana (Cyber Crime Station) in Mirzapur.
The Cyber Police Investigation and Resolution
The Cyber Thana Mirzapur provided a detailed report in response to the RTI application:
- Investigation Start: The authorities received the application on March 19, 2024, in the Cyber Fraud Case.
- Technical Probe: The technical investigation confirmed that the facts were true.
- The Compromise (Sulah-nama): On March 22, 2024, the complainant (Bindra Prasad) appeared at the police station. The other party (Shivam Mishra and Pramod Kumar) also appeared at the police station. They came with a written deed of compromise.
- Basis for Closure in Cyber Fraud Case: The compromise clearly states that both parties have mutually settled the matter. This resolution includes the financial transactions. The complainant explicitly states that they do not desire any further action from the police. The statement raises questions about whether victims had any other choice. It also questions whether the police seized any fraudulent amounts from the offenders.
- Outcome: Based on the compromise deed, the authorities disposed of the application. They did not register any First Information Report (FIR).
Legal Points on Investigation (RTI Query)
Regarding the legal process of investigation, the Cyber Thana referenced the relevant sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC):
- Points 3, 4, and 5 were all addressed. This was done under Article 51(1). It concerns investigations carried out under Section 173 Sub-section 3 (or Sub-section 1) of the CrPC.
Conclusion: Prompt Action and Mutual Settlement
This case highlights that in cyber fraud incidents, the police may dispose of a matter without registering a formal FIR. They do this particularly when they see a clear money trail. They do this if the parties reach a mutual compromise and the victim feels financially satisfied. The police base their final decision on the complainant’s satisfaction and the submitted compromise deed/paper of agreement (sulah-nama).
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.