The Digital Paradox: When Law Enforcement Fails Victims of Cyber Fraud

The promise of a “Digital India” is built on the foundation of secure, seamless transactions and the empowerment of the common citizen. However, a growing chasm exists between the government’s digital ambitions and the ground-level reality of law enforcement. A recent grievance filed by Yogi M.P. Singh (Registration: PMOPG/E/2025/0018733) on behalf of a victim in Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, serves as a damning indictment of the systemic apathy and technical incompetence plaguing our police force.

When a local shopkeeper loses his hard-earned money to sophisticated conmen, he doesn’t just lose currency; he loses faith in the state’s ability to protect him.

---

The Modus Operandi: Deception at the Doorstep

On February 5, 2025, Pramod Kumar Kushvaha, a small-scale entrepreneur in village Godasar Sarpati, was targeted by two individuals masquerading as “Paytm staff.” This wasn’t a remote phishing call from a distant state; this was a physical infiltration. Under the guise of “fixing” or “formally closing” a market app, these predators gained access to Kushvaha’s device and siphoned ₹20,000 into an account belonging to one Mohammad Shoaib Sameer.

Despite having CCTV footage of the suspects and digital footprints of the transaction, the victim found himself trapped in a bureaucratic nightmare that is all too common in the most populous state of the world’s largest democracy.

---

The “Jurisdictional Shuffle”: A Barrier to Justice

The immediate aftermath of the crime revealed a glaring flaw in the police response system—the “jurisdictional shuffle.

• Station House Officer (Vindhyachal): Advised the victim to go to the District Cyber Cell.
• Cyber Police Station (Mirzapur): Allegedly informed the victim that they only register FIRs for frauds exceeding ₹5,00,000.

This arbitrary threshold for justice is not only illegal but also morally bankrupt. By refusing to register a First Information Report (FIR) for a “small” amount of ₹20,000—which could represent months of savings for a rural shopkeeper—the police are effectively granting immunity to cybercriminals. This “dereliction of duty” ensures that small-time fraudsters can operate with impunity, knowing the law will not bother to chase them.

---

Technical Incompetence vs. Systematic Accountability

The closing remarks of the investigation officer, Sub-Inspector Vinod Kumar Yadav, highlight a profound misunderstanding of digital forensics. The police claimed the case was stalled because the victim “failed to provide” the transaction details and account numbers of the accused, despite repeated requests.

This raises a fundamental question: Who is the investigator?

In a functional justice system, the burden of evidence collection—especially bank-to-bank transaction trails—lies with the police. As noted in the grievance, information regarding the destination of funds is held by financial institutions like the State Bank of India (SBI). Under the law, investigating officers have the authority to demand these details from banks. Expecting a victim of fraud to “trace” the offender from society or provide technical data that only banks possess is a clear sign of administrative incompetence.

---

Governance and the Flourishing of Cybercrime

Can cybercriminal activities flourish under good governance? The answer, evidenced by this case, is a resounding no. True governance is not measured by the number of apps launched, but by the efficiency of the grievance redressal mechanism when those apps are exploited.

The current state of affairs suggests a “Wild West” scenario in the digital landscape of Uttar Pradesh. When police officers demand that victims do the investigative legwork, they aren’t just being “lazy”—they are being complicit in the growth of a criminal ecosystem. Corruption in the government machinery isn’t always about bribes; often, it is the “corruption of apathy,” where the refusal to perform one’s duty is the greatest theft of all.

---

The Safety of the Common Man’s Bank Account

The gravity of the situation cannot be overstated. If a citizen cannot feel safe holding money in a nationalized bank like SBI, the very fabric of the economy is at risk.

1. Safety: Money is no longer “safe” if the recovery mechanism is non-existent.
2. Vulnerability: Citizens are left to fend for themselves against organized criminal elements.
3. Accountability: Closing a case on the grounds that the victim didn’t provide the thief’s identity is a mockery of Article 51A of the Constitution.

---

Conclusion: A Call for Urgent Reform

The case of Pramod Kumar Kushvaha is not an isolated incident; it is a symptom of a systemic failure. For India to truly lead in the digital age, its law enforcement must be as tech-savvy and agile as the criminals they pursue.

We need:

• Mandatory FIR Registration: Regardless of the amount defrauded.
• Technical Training: Police officers must understand that bank trails are obtained through official requisitions, not through the victim’s “detective work.”
• Accountability for Officers: SI-level officers who close cases due to their own inability to navigate digital evidence must be held accountable for dereliction of duty.

Until these reforms are enacted, the “wildfire” of cyber fraud will continue to consume the trust of the Indian citizen.

Based on the grievance details provided and the official hierarchy of the Uttar Pradesh government, here is the structured contact information for the public authorities involved and the specific application details.

Grievance Identification Details

• Registration Number: PMOPG/E/2025/0018733
• Date of Receipt: 09/02/2025
• Complainant Name: Yogi M. P. Singh (on behalf of Pramod Kumar Kushvaha)
• Status: Closed (Disputed)

---

Primary Public Authorities Concerned

Authority Level	Office / Department	Contact Person / Designation	Contact Details
State Level	Chief Minister’s Secretariat, UP	Shri Arvind Mohan (Joint Secretary)	Phone: 0522-2226350 Email: arvind.12574@gov.in
District Level	Superintendent of Police (SP), Mirzapur	Office of the SP	Phone: 05442-250002 Email: spmz-up@nic.in
Specialized Unit	Cyber Police Station, Mirzapur	In-Charge, Cyber Cell	Web: cybercrime.gov.in
Local Level	Police Station, Vindhyachal	Station House Officer (SHO)	Phone: 05442-281220 Email: sho.vindhyachal-up@gov.in

---

Financial Institution Contacts (For Evidence Recovery)

Since the investigation involves a transaction from the State Bank of India (SBI) to a third party, the following bank contact is critical for the investigating officer:

• Bank: State Bank of India, Chhanbey (Vijaypur) Branch
• Branch Code: 15131
• Phone: 05442-281220 (Bank-specific extension)
• Email: sbi.15131@sbi.co.in

---

Important Web Links for Follow-up

1. CPGRAMS (PMO Grievance Portal):pgportal.gov.in
   • Use this to file an appeal against the “Closed” status if you are dissatisfied with the response.
2. Jansunwai (UP Govt Grievance Portal):jansunwai.up.nic.in
   • The specific portal for grievances directed to the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh.
3. National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal:cybercrime.gov.in
   • Direct portal to report cyber fraud of any amount, which mandates police action regardless of local “value limits.”

---

Actionable Legal Note

The refusal of the S.I. to register an FIR based on the “victim’s failure to provide IDs” can be challenged under Section 154 of the CrPC (now relevant sections of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita).

Would you like me to draft a formal “Letter of Dissatisfaction” or an Appeal to the SP Mirzapur citing the police’s legal obligation to collect bank data?