The Crisis of Accountability: Why Police Refusal to File FIRs in Cyber Fraud Cases is a Threat to Justice
The digital revolution has brought unparalleled convenience to our fingertips, but it has also birthed a sophisticated breed of predators. In the heart of Uttar Pradesh, a disturbing trend is emerging—one where the very institutions designed to protect citizens are failing them at the first hurdle. The case of Pramod Kumar Kushwaha, a small-scale shopkeeper from Mirzapur, serves as a harrowing case study of how bureaucratic apathy and the refusal to register First Information Reports (FIRs) are emboldening cybercriminals and eroding public trust.
The Anatomy of a Deception: The Mirzapur Incident
On February 5, 2025, the sanctity of a local business in Godsar Sarpati was violated not by force, but by fraud. Two individuals arrived on a motorcycle, posing as “Paytm technicians.” Under the guise of updating or “fixing” the shop’s payment application, they gained access to the victim’s mobile device. Within minutes, ₹20,000—a significant sum for any small business owner—was siphoned from Mr. Kushwaha’s State Bank of India account and transferred to an account belonging to one “Mohammad Shoaib Sameer.”
Despite having CCTV footage of the suspects, the motorcycle, and a clear digital trail through the Paytm transaction screenshot, the victim’s pursuit of justice has hit a brick wall. This wall is not built by the criminals, but by the local law enforcement at the Vindhyachal Police Station.
The FIR: A Legal Mandate, Not an Option
The core issue highlighted in the grievances filed by Yogi M. P. Singh is the blatant refusal of the police to register an FIR. Under Indian law, the registration of an FIR is the mandatory first step in investigating a cognizable offense. It is not a discretionary power granted 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. This logic is fundamentally flawed. In any cyber fraud case, the victim only possesses the transaction ID or the name shown on a mobile app. The power to trace the Interbank Response and the specific account details lies solely with the police through their legal authority to requisition data from banks. By asking the victim to provide information that only a bank can provide to an officer, the police are essentially creating a circular trap of inaction.
Dereliction of Duty and the “Cyber Cell” Excuse
One of the most troubling aspects of this case is the “forwarding” culture. The local police frequently use 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 the technical investigation is later handled by a specialized Cyber Cell is a secondary administrative decision.
By failing to register the FIR, the police:
- Grant Impunity: Without a registered case, there is no official record of the crime, allowing the offenders to remain “invisible” in the eyes of the law.
- Delay Critical Evidence: In cybercrime, time is of the essence. Digital footprints can be erased, and funds can be moved through multiple layers of “mule accounts” within hours. Every day spent in “preliminary inquiry” without an FIR is a day given to the fraudster to disappear.
- Abuse Process: Shifting the burden of proof onto the victim—asking them to identify the specific bank branch of the criminal—is a clear sign of dereliction of duty.
The Failure of the Grievance Redressal System
The documentation reveals a frustrating cycle of “case closed” remarks without actual resolution. 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 the report had been “received and sent for disposal.
Yet, the “disposal” was nothing more than a restatement of the police’s refusal to act. This highlights a systemic failure in the IGRS (Integrated Grievance Redressal System). 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 is stolen from a citizen like Mr. Kushwaha, it is not just a personal loss; it is a blow to the digital economy. The government’s push for “Digital India” relies entirely on the security of the ecosystem. If citizens feel that the police will not help them when they are defrauded, they will retreat from digital payments, slowing down economic formalization.
Furthermore, the “precarious situation” mentioned in the grievance reflects a broader social crisis. If the majority of cyber fraud cases are met with police indifference, it creates a “low-risk, high-reward” environment for criminals. This undermines the rule of law and leaves the common man feeling defenseless against invisible predators.
The Path Forward: Urgent Reforms Needed
To restore public trust and ensure justice, several steps must be taken immediately:
- Mandatory FIR Training: Police personnel at the station level must be strictly instructed that the registration of an FIR in cyber fraud is mandatory if a cognizable offense is disclosed.
- Bank-Police Synergy: Investigation officers must be trained on 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: Officers like S.I. Vinod Kumar Yadav, who claim they cannot act because the “victim” hasn’t provided bank details of the thief, should be held accountable for professional incompetence.
- Functional Helplines: The grievance mentions that the cyber fraud helpline is often non-responsive. A 24/7, high-capacity National Cyber Crime Helpline (1930) must be integrated with local police response teams.
Conclusion
The case of registration number GOVUP/E/2025/0020726 is not just about one man’s lost money; it is a litmus test for the Uttar Pradesh administration. Will the state allow its police force to run away from accountability, or will it enforce the protocols necessary to protect its citizens?
The “majority of cyber fraud cases” cannot continue to go unregistered. Justice delayed by bureaucratic red tape is, in the digital age, justice denied at light speed. It is time for the Chief Minister’s Secretariat and the Joint Secretary to look beyond the “closed” status reports and demand real action: the registration of the FIR and the pursuit of 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)
Chief Minister’s Secretariat, Lucknow
Since your grievance has been forwarded to this office, these 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
If you wish 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
| 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
Since the case was closed at the PMO level with a “Not Satisfied” rating, and is currently with the UP Joint Secretary, you should:
- Send an Email Reminder: Use the email
arvind.12574@gov.into send the structured blog post/report I drafted, specifically pointing out that S.I. Vinod Kumar Yadav’s report admits to non-registration of the FIR despite a clear cognizable offense. - 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.”
Would you like me to create a concise “Letter of Dissatisfaction” that you can copy and email directly to Shri Arvind Mohan?
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.