The Cyber Fraud Investigation Status in Uttar Pradesh has once again come under scrutiny, exposing troubling gaps between citizen expectations and bureaucratic reality. A Mirzapur resident’s ordeal, involving alleged misuse of his PAN and Aadhaar details to facilitate crores of rupees in fraudulent financial transactions, illustrates how a single case can languish for years despite an FIR being registered. What should be a straightforward criminal investigation instead becomes tangled in inter-departmental finger-pointing, with police citing non-cooperation from central tax authorities as the reason for stalled progress. Meanwhile, the victim is left navigating grievance portals that offer little real accountability, watching complaints get closed or redirected without resolution. This case underscores a broader pattern across Uttar Pradesh, where the mechanics of “good governance” often fail precisely when citizens need them most — turning victims of fraud into unwitting investigators of their own cases.

Cyber Fraud Investigation Status in Uttar Pradesh: A Citizen’s Battle Against Bureaucratic Inertia

Indeed, understanding the Cyber Fraud Investigation Status in Uttar Pradesh matters more than ever, because a sophisticated identity-theft case shows how easily a promising investigation can stall. This pattern is not new either — as this cyber case highlighting urgent concerns shows, similar red flags have surfaced before. Specifically, a resident of Mirzapur now finds himself at the center of a ₹350 million (35 Crore) tax fraud — not as a perpetrator, but as a victim of identity theft. Although police registered an FIR over a year ago, the victim, Shri Yogi M.P. Singh, still remains caught in a “tetrapolar” struggle between financial institutions, the Income Tax Department, and the State Police.

PAN and Aadhaar Misuse: The Core of the Uttar Pradesh Cyber Fraud Case

To begin with, the crisis began when the applicant discovered that unknown entities were using his Permanent Account Number (PAN) and Aadhaar details to conduct massive business transactions. In particular:

• Financial Impact: Unauthorized transactions exceeding ₹34.38 Crores.
• Credit Fraud: Fraudsters secured multiple loans, including Kisan Credit Card (KCC) loans, using his credentials through major institutions like the State Bank of India.
• Tax Implications: Meanwhile, the Income Tax Department has served arbitrary notices to the applicant, even though the perpetrators reportedly paid the TDS (Tax Deducted at Source) on these fraudulent transactions using his PAN. This is not an isolated pattern, either — a similar dispute is detailed in Investigating Cyber Fraud of Rs.343877662 in Uttar Pradesh, where tax authorities faced comparable accountability questions.

Cyber Fraud Investigation Status in Uttar Pradesh: A Stalled Process

So far, police registered FIR No. 291/2023 on November 11, 2023, at Police Station Katra, Mirzapur (under IPC Section 420 and IT Act 66C/66D). However, the investigation has since reached a deadlock. As a result, the applicant alleges that the Uttar Pradesh Police cannot make headway because the Income Tax Department is not providing the requisite documents. Specifically, police need data from the NSDL (Protean), a subsidiary of the Income Tax Dept, to identify the source of the tax payments and the actual individuals operating the accounts.

Administrative Negligence and “Arbitrary” Closures in the UP Cyber Fraud Case

Furthermore, a significant portion of the grievance concerns how the government’s redressal mechanisms have handled the complaints. For instance:

1. Grievance Misrouting: Officials allegedly closed or forwarded complaints filed via the UP CM Helpline (IGRS) (GOVUP/E/2025/0002563) to unrelated authorities, such as the GST department, despite the issue’s clear connection to Income Tax and Banking. This same gap between citizens’ right to answers and official responsiveness is explored further in Cyber Crime Investigation and Right to Information.
2. The Accountability Gap: Although the PMO was expected to bridge the gap between central (Income Tax) and state (UP Police) departments, officials closed the grievances via CPGRAMS with remarks advising the applicant to “approach the concerned department” himself.
3. The “Tetrapolar” Conflict: Ultimately, the victim describes the case as having four poles: financial institutions that allowed accounts to open without proper KYC; the Income Tax Department, which issued notices while withholding evidence of the real fraudster; the UP Police, who failed to secure documents from central agencies; and the victim himself, left to prove his innocence against a ₹35-crore paper trail.

Current Cyber Fraud Investigation Status in Uttar Pradesh: The Legal Standpoint

As of January 2025, officials still consider the investigation “ongoing.” Notably, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur, has reported that authorities have frozen suspicious accounts and sent correspondence to the Chairman of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), New Delhi. Nevertheless, the applicant remains dissatisfied, noting that police are not taking coercive action against officials who may be concealing evidence or delaying the transfer of critical data.

Despite these setbacks, the police cannot escape their legal responsibility toward this cyber fraud case. Under Indian law, once officials register an FIR, they have a mandatory duty to investigate a cognizable offense, such as fraud and forgery. Although “non-cooperation” from another department is a common administrative excuse, it does not hold up as a valid legal defense for stalling an investigation. Here is why, in detail:

Mandatory Duty to Investigate the Uttar Pradesh Cyber Fraud Case

According to Section 157 of the CrPC (now Section 175 of the BNSS), police must investigate the facts and circumstances of a case once they register an FIR. Notably, the Supreme Court of India has emphasized in various judgments (e.g., Sakiri Vasu v. State of UP) that this investigation must be fair, prompt, and effective.

Police Power to Summon Documents in a Cyber Fraud Investigation

Even so, if the Income Tax Department withholds documents, police are not helpless. Under Section 91 of the CrPC (Section 94 BNSS), they can issue a written order compelling any department or officer to produce documents necessary for the investigation. If the department still refuses, police can then move a search warrant application before a Magistrate under Section 93 CrPC to seize the required records. Additionally, a public servant who intentionally withholds a document they are legally bound to produce can face prosecution under Section 175 of the IPC (Section 210 BNS).

Judicial Supervision Over the Cyber Fraud Investigation

When police claim they are “stuck,” citizens can, instead, turn to the courts to compel action. Under Section 156(3) CrPC, applicants can file a petition asking the Magistrate to monitor the investigation, demand a progress report, and direct the Income Tax Department to cooperate. Alternatively, citizens can approach the Allahabad High Court under Article 226 and seek a “Writ of Mandamus” — a court order compelling police to perform their statutory duty.

Administrative Accountability for Uttar Pradesh Police

Separately, the “arbitrary closure” of a grievance on the CM portal constitutes its own administrative failure. Under the UP Police Regulations, the Superintendent of Police bears responsibility for resolving inter-departmental hurdles through official channels, such as writing to the CBDT or the Ministry of Finance. For a closer look at how such accountability plays out in practice, see Cyber Fraud & Police Accountability in Local Cases.

---

Police Claims vs. Legal Reality in This Cyber Fraud Case

What Police Say	Legal Reality
“IT Department is not giving us the data.”	Police can issue a Section 91 notice or, alternatively, obtain a search warrant from a Magistrate.
“It’s a central government matter; we can’t intervene.”	Once a crime occurs in UP, the UP Police have full jurisdiction to investigate, regardless of which central agency holds the data.
“The case is closed on the portal.”	A portal status does not close the FIR. Only a Final Report or Charge Sheet submitted to a court can legally conclude an investigation.

Ultimately, the government carries a legal and constitutional duty to ensure police accountability in every cyber fraud investigation. Therefore, police cannot simply claim “no evidence found” and walk away if they have failed to use the legal tools available to them — such as Section 91 of the CrPC/BNSS — to compel the Income Tax Department to cooperate.

What Happens When Police Close a Cyber Fraud Investigation

Even so, when police claim “no evidence found” and file a Final Report (Closure Report), the case does not necessarily end there. Below, here’s how citizens can pursue accountability.

The Judicial Check on a Cyber Fraud Investigation Closure

First of all, police do not hold final authority to close a case — only a Magistrate does. When police submit a closure report, the Magistrate must notify the complainant, who can then file a Protest Petition. In turn, the Magistrate can reject the “no evidence” claim if the investigation appears superficial, and can order a fresh investigation under Section 156(3) or 173(8) of the CrPC (now Section 175/193 BNSS).

Fixing Accountability for Wilful Negligence in Uttar Pradesh

Moreover, if an officer deliberately fails to collect evidence or ignores obvious leads, such as the PAN transaction details provided by the victim, they become liable under Section 166A of the IPC (Section 199 BNS), which punishes a public servant who knowingly disobeys a legal duty with up to two years of imprisonment. In addition, citizens can file a formal complaint with the State/District Police Complaints Authority (PCA) against the Investigating Officer for “gross negligence.”

The Uttar Pradesh Government’s Liability in Cyber Fraud Cases

Similarly, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a “Fair Investigation” is a Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, if the government’s machinery — police plus the IT Department — fails to coordinate, the State can be held liable for administrative failure. As a next step, citizens can approach the Allahabad High Court via a Writ Petition to demand a court-monitored investigation.

A Roadmap to Challenge a Cyber Fraud Investigation Closure

Action	Authority	Purpose
File Protest Petition	Concerned Magistrate	Stop the court from accepting the “No Evidence” report and demand re-investigation.
Section 156(3) Application	Magistrate	Ask the court to monitor the investigation and order police to seize IT records.
Writ of Mandamus	Allahabad High Court	Compel the State Government to ensure coordination between UP Police and the Central IT Dept.
Complaint to PCA	Police Complaints Authority	Hold the specific officer accountable for arbitrarily closing the case.

Strategic Advice for Advancing This Cyber Fraud Case

Although police may use the “no evidence” remark to reduce their pending caseload, financial records nonetheless remain digital and permanent. So, if officials deducted ₹3.4 crore in tax (TDS), a paper trail exists within the banking system. To advance the case, therefore, citizens need to engage department leadership directly using the details below.

Key Reference Numbers for the Uttar Pradesh Cyber Fraud Case

• UP CM Helpline (IGRS): GOVUP/E/2025/0002563
• PMO Grievance (CPGRAMS): PMOPG/E/2024/0182646
• Mirzapur FIR No: 291/2023 (Police Station: Katra, Mirzapur)

High-Level Authorities Overseeing the Cyber Fraud Investigation Status in Uttar Pradesh

Since the grievance alleges inter-departmental non-cooperation, escalation should go directly to the heads of these organizations. For broader context on why such escalation is often necessary, see Addressing Income Tax Corruption in India.

Income Tax Department (Central Board of Direct Taxes)

Authority	Name	Email	Contact
Chairman, CBDT	Shri Ravi Agrawal	chairmancbdt@nic.in	011-23092648
Member (Systems & FS)	Shri L. Raj Shekhar Reddy	member.systems.cbdt@gov.in	011-23092037
DGIT (Intelligence & CI)	Shri Amitav	dgit.icinv@incometax.gov.in	011-24363582
Aayakar Sampark Kendra	General Helpline	ask@incometaxindia.gov.in	1800 180 1961

Uttar Pradesh Police (Mirzapur & Lucknow HQ)

Authority	Name/Designation	Email	Contact
SSP Mirzapur	Shri Somen Barma	spmzr-up@nic.in	9454400299 / 05442-252578
DGP Uttar Pradesh	Shri Rajeev Krishna	dgp-hq@up.gov.in	0522-2390240
Anti-Corruption Org (UP)	Mirzapur Unit	aco-mirzapur.mi@up.gov.in	9454402487
CO City (Mirzapur)	Shri Vivek Jwala	co-city.mi@up.gov.in	9454401590

Essential Web Links & Portals for This Cyber Fraud Case

• UP IGRS (Jansunwai): Use the “Feedback” or “Send Reminder” option for grievance GOVUP/E/2025/0002563.
• CPGRAMS (Central Portal): File an Appeal against the closure of PMOPG/E/2024/0182646.
• NSDL (Protean) PAN Grievance: Email tininfo@proteantech.in.
• UP Police Official Website: For general complaint filing and updates.

Next Step for This Uttar Pradesh Cyber Fraud Investigation: A Formal Notice

Finally, a single, comprehensive email should go to the Chairman of CBDT and SSP Mirzapur, with a copy to the CMO Uttar Pradesh (arvind.12574@gov.in).

Subject: Urgent: Stalled Cyber Fraud Investigation (FIR 291/2023) – Seeking Inter-Departmental Coordination for ₹34 Cr Fraud

Content to include, specifically:

1. State that the UP Police claim the IT Department is not providing documents.
2. Explicitly demand the use of Section 91 CrPC to secure NSDL data.
3. Request that the CBDT verify why it accepted TDS from fraudulent accounts using the victim’s PAN.

Conclusion: A Test for “Good Governance” in the Uttar Pradesh Cyber Fraud Case

In the end, this case serves as a grim reminder of how identity theft can upend a citizen’s life. After all, good governance requires more than a portal for filing complaints — it demands that those complaints trigger real inter-departmental action. When a citizen submits 44 pages of evidence and still faces arbitrary grievance closures, trust in the system inevitably erodes.

Ultimately, resolving this ₹350 million fraud depends on whether the Ministry of Finance and the Uttar Pradesh Home Department can move past bureaucratic silos and treat identity theft with the urgency it deserves. So, the Cyber Fraud Investigation Status in Uttar Pradesh, in this case, will test whether accountability mechanisms can actually deliver justice — or whether they will remain another closed file in a long list of grievances.Pradesh — Mirzapur PAN and Aadhaar fraud case.”deserves. The Cyber Fraud Investigation Status in Uttar Pradesh, in this case, will test whether accountability mechanisms can actually deliver justice — or whether they will remain another closed file in a long list of grievances.