Cyber Fraud & Police Action sit at the center of a growing trust crisis across Uttar Pradesh, and the Mirzapur case shows exactly why. When a shopkeeper loses ₹20,000 to fraudsters posing as technicians, the law is clear: police must register an FIR immediately, since doing so is the mandatory first step in any cognizable offense. Yet, in practice, officers often shift that burden back onto victims, demanding bank details only a bank can legally provide. This disconnect between Cyber Fraud & Police Action turns a straightforward complaint into a bureaucratic maze, letting evidence go cold while criminals move funds through mule accounts. Ultimately, closing this gap requires mandatory FIR training, faster bank-police coordination, and real accountability for officers who treat registration as optional rather than obligatory.

Cyber Fraud & Police Action: Why Refusing to File FIRs is a Threat to Justice

The digital revolution has put unparalleled convenience at our fingertips, but it has also bred a sophisticated new breed of predators. Meanwhile, in the heart of Uttar Pradesh, the gap between cyber fraud and police action is widening — a disturbing trend where the very institutions meant to protect citizens fail them at the first hurdle. Specifically, the case of Pramod Kumar Kushwaha, a small-scale shopkeeper from Mirzapur, offers a harrowing case study of how bureaucratic apathy and the refusal to register First Information Reports (FIRs) embolden cybercriminals and erode public trust.

---

Cyber Fraud & Police Action: The Mirzapur Incident

On February 5, 2025, fraud — not force — violated the sanctity of a local business in Godsar Sarpati. First, two individuals arrived on a motorcycle, posing as “Paytm technicians.” Then, under the guise of updating or “fixing” the shop’s payment application, they gained access to the victim’s mobile device. Within minutes, they siphoned ₹20,000 — a significant sum for any small business owner — from Mr. Kushwaha’s State Bank of India account and transferred it to an account belonging to one “Mohammad Shoaib Sameer.

Even so, despite CCTV footage of the suspects and the motorcycle, plus a clear digital trail through the Paytm transaction screenshot, the victim’s pursuit of justice has hit a brick wall. Notably, criminals didn’t build this wall; local law enforcement at the Vindhyachal Police Station did.

The FIR: A Legal Mandate, Not an Option

At the core of the grievances Yogi M. P. Singh filed lies a blatant issue: the police refuse to register an FIR. This single refusal captures the entire cyber fraud & police action failure in one act. Under Indian law, registering an FIR is the mandatory first step in investigating a cognizable offense. In other words, it isn’t a discretionary power that belongs to a Sub-Inspector; it is an obligatory duty.

The investigation officer, S.I. Vinod Kumar Yadav, reportedly claimed that the “UPI number was not clear” and that the victim failed to provide the recipient’s account details. However, this logic is fundamentally flawed. In any cyber fraud case, the victim only holds the transaction ID or the name shown on a mobile app. By contrast, only the police, through their legal authority to requisition data from banks, can trace the Interbank Response and the specific account details. Therefore, by asking the victim to provide information that only a bank can supply to an officer, the police create a circular trap of inaction.

Dereliction of Duty and the “Cyber Cell” Excuse

Furthermore, one of the most troubling aspects of this case is the “forwarding” culture. Local police frequently cite the existence of a “Cyber Cell” as a reason to avoid registering a case at the local station level. However, procedural norms dictate that the FIR must be registered first at the station with jurisdiction. Whether a specialized Cyber Cell later handles the technical investigation is simply a secondary administrative decision.

As a result, by failing to register the FIR, the police:

1. Grant Impunity: Without a registered case, no official record of the crime exists, so offenders remain “invisible” in the eyes of the law.
2. Delay Critical Evidence: In cybercrime, time matters most. Digital footprints can vanish, and funds can move through multiple layers of “mule accounts” within hours. Consequently, every day spent in “preliminary inquiry” without an FIR gives the fraudster another day to disappear.
3. Abuse Process: Shifting the burden of proof onto the victim — by asking them to identify the specific bank branch of the criminal — clearly signals dereliction of duty.

---

The Failure of the Grievance Redressal System

Meanwhile, the documentation reveals a frustrating cycle: officials mark cases “closed” without ever resolving them. For instance, a grievance filed through the Prime Minister’s Office (PMOPG/E/2025/0018734) was closed on March 2, 2025, with a generic remark stating that officials had “received” the report and “sent it for disposal.

Yet, that “disposal” amounted to nothing more than a restatement of the police’s refusal to act. As a result, this highlights a systemic failure in the IGRS (Integrated Grievance Redressal System). Ultimately, when higher authorities accept a “closed” status based on a report that admits to non-registration of an FIR, the system reinforces the very accountability gap it was meant to close.

The Economic and Social Impact of Inaction

When ₹20,000 disappears from a citizen like Mr. Kushwaha, it isn’t just a personal loss — it also deals a blow to the digital economy. After all, the government’s push for “Digital India” relies entirely on the security of the ecosystem. So, if citizens feel that police won’t help them when they’re defrauded, they’ll retreat from digital payments, which in turn slows economic formalization.

Additionally, the “precarious situation” the grievance mentions reflects a broader social crisis. If police indifference meets the majority of cyber fraud cases, it creates a “low-risk, high-reward” environment for criminals. In effect, this undermines the rule of law and leaves the common man feeling defenseless against invisible predators.

---

The Path Forward: Fixing Cyber Fraud & Police Action Together

To restore public trust and ensure justice, authorities must take several steps immediately:

• Mandatory FIR Training: Police personnel at the station level must receive strict instructions that registering an FIR in cyber fraud is mandatory whenever a cognizable offense comes to light.
• Bank-Police Synergy: Investigation officers must learn how to use the CCTNS (Crime and Criminal Tracking Network & Systems) and direct portals to communicate with banks for immediate “freezing” of fraudulent funds.
• Accountability for Inaction: Authorities should hold officers like S.I. Vinod Kumar Yadav — who claim they can’t act because the “victim” hasn’t provided the thief’s bank details — accountable for professional incompetence.
• Functional Helplines: Since the grievance notes that the cyber fraud helpline is often non-responsive, a 24/7, high-capacity National Cyber Crime Helpline (1930) must integrate with local police response teams.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the case of registration number GOVUP/E/2025/0020726 isn’t just about one man’s lost money; instead, it serves as a litmus test for the Uttar Pradesh administration. Will the state let its police force run away from accountability, or will it enforce the protocols necessary to protect its citizens?

In short, better cyber fraud & police action starts with registration — the “majority of cyber fraud cases” cannot continue to go unregistered. After all, in the digital age, bureaucratic red tape that delays justice amounts to justice denied at light speed. So, it’s time for the Chief Minister’s Secretariat and the Joint Secretary to look beyond the “closed” status reports and demand real action: registering the FIR and pursuing the criminals captured on CCTV.

To help you pursue this matter, I have compiled the official application IDs, contact details, and web links for the relevant public authorities involved in your grievance.

---

1. Primary Case References

• UP State Grievance ID: GOVUP/E/2025/0020726 (Forwarded to Uttar Pradesh)
• Central/PMO Grievance ID: PMOPG/E/2025/0018734 (Previously closed/contested)
• Related IGRS IDs: 6000250029536, 6000250029535, 40019925003257

---

2. Concerned Public Authorities (Contact Details) (Cyber Fraud & Police Action)

Chief Minister’s Secretariat, Lucknow (Cyber Fraud & Police Action)

Since this grievance has been forwarded to this office, here are the key contacts for follow-up and appeals:

Name	Designation	Contact Number	Email Address
Shri Arvind Mohan	Joint Secretary	0522-2226350 / 2226354	arvind.12574@gov.in
Shri Vinod Sharma	Section Officer (L.S.-3)	9454412736	vsls32165@gmail.com
Smt. Anjana Tripathi	Under Secretary	9454411282	anjna.11282@gov.in
General CMO Email	—	0522-2239234 (Fax)	cmup@nic.in

• Office Address: Chief Minister Secretariat, Room No. 321, U.P. Secretariat, Lok Bhawan, Lucknow – 226001.

Cyber Crime Headquarters, Uttar Pradesh (Cyber Fraud & Police Action)

To report the police station’s failure to specialized units:

• SP Cyber Crime: sp-cyber.lu@up.gov.in
• DIG Cyber Crime: 0522-2390538 | dig-cyber.lu@up.gov.in
• National Helpline: 1930 (24/7 financial fraud reporting)

---

3. Important Web Links (Cyber Fraud & Police Action)

Purpose	Official Link
Track UP Grievance (IGRS)	Jansunwai-Samadhan Portal
Track Central/PMO Grievance	CPGRAMS Portal
UP Police Official Website	uppolice.gov.in
Chief Minister Office (CMO) Directory	upcmo.up.nic.in

---

4. Immediate Next Steps (Cyber Fraud & Police Action)

Since the PMO closed the case with a “Not Satisfied” rating, and the UP Joint Secretary currently holds it, you should:

Lodge a Dissatisfaction Feedback: Log into the Jansunwai Portal and use the “Give Feedback” option for the state ID to reopen the case, stating that the “Police report is misleading as it seeks info the victim cannot legally obtain from banks.”on” that you can copy and email directly to Shri Arvind Mohan?

Send an Email Reminder: Use the email arvind.12574@gov.in to send the structured report, specifically pointing out that S.I. Vinod Kumar Yadav’s report admits to non-registration of the FIR despite a clear cognizable offense.