The Digital Dark Spot: Why the Refusal to File Cyber Fraud FIRs in Mirzapur Threatens Public Trust

In the modern era, the internet has become the new frontier for criminal activity. For citizens in Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, this digital frontier is increasingly becoming a lawless wasteland. While the central and state governments promote “Digital India,” a troubling reality persists at the grassroots level: victims of cyber fraud are being turned away by law enforcement, leaving them financially devastated and without legal recourse.

The recent RTI application filed by activist Yogi M. P. Singh (Registration Number: SPMZR/R/2025/60058) highlights a systemic failure within the Mirzapur Police Department. The case involves Pramod Kumar Kushwaha, a resident of village Godasar Sarpati, who lost ₹20,000 to cybercriminals—a significant sum for a common citizen. Despite multiple grievances filed through the PMO and Chief Minister’s portals, the police have allegedly failed to register a First Information Report (FIR).

The Legal Mandate vs. Ground Reality

The primary duty of the police is to uphold the law and protect citizens. Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)—which has replaced the CrPC—the registration of an FIR is mandatory when a complaint discloses the commission of a cognizable offense. Cyber fraud, involving cheating and unauthorized access to funds, falls squarely within this category.

When the police refuse to register an FIR, they are not merely committing a procedural lapse; they are violating the fundamental rights of the victim. In Mirzapur, the pattern of “transferring” matters to the Cyber Cell without an FIR number creates a legal limbo. Without an FIR, there is no official record of the crime, no time-bound investigation, and no accountability for the recovery of stolen funds.

The Danger of Indirect Encouragement

The refusal to register FIRs sends a dangerous message to the underworld: cybercrime in Mirzapur goes unpunished. Law enforcement’s inaction acts as a “green signal” for fraudsters. When criminals realize that the police will hesitate to document the crime, their sense of impunity grows. This negligence does more than just hurt the individual victim; it compromises the safety of the entire community by allowing criminal networks to flourish unchecked.

Direct vs. Circumstantial Evidence of Corruption

The RTI application raises a provocative but necessary question regarding the motives behind this inaction. In legal terms, corruption is proven through two types of evidence:

1. Direct Evidence: Tangible proof such as bribes, digital trails of money transfers, or recorded conversations.
2. Circumstantial Evidence: A pattern of behavior that suggests a hidden motive or an illegal nexus.

The consistent and systematic refusal to file FIRs in cyber fraud cases across Mirzapur serves as strong circumstantial evidence. It suggests a possible nexus between cybercriminals and certain police officials. If the police intentionally suppress the “crime statistics” by not registering cases, it may be to project a false image of a low crime rate, or worse, to protect the perpetrators.

Key Questions Raised via RTI

The transparency sought by Yogi M. P. Singh through the RTI Act is a vital step toward accountability. The application poses five critical questions to the ASP Operations (PIO Om Prakash Singh) that the public deserves to know:

• Accountability for Inquiry: Who is the officer responsible for accepting “arbitrary reports” that dismiss grievances without action?
• The Reason for Non-Registration: If an FIR has not been registered in the Kushwaha case, what is the specific legal justification for this refusal?
• Procedural Validity: Under which section of the BNSS (formerly CrPC) is an investigation being conducted if no FIR exists?
• Jurisdictional Transfers: How can a matter be transferred from the Vindhyachal Police Station to the Cyber Police Station without a formal case being registered first?
• Statistical Transparency: How many cyber fraud FIRs have actually been registered by the Vindhyachal Station House Officer (SHO) over the last three financial years (2022-2025)?

The Threat to Public Trust

Public trust is the bedrock of effective policing. When a villager like Pramod Kumar Kushwaha loses his hard-earned savings and finds the police station doors effectively closed to his grievance, that trust shatters. The “system” begins to look like a wall designed to protect the powerful and the criminal rather than a shield for the innocent.

Furthermore, the shift from CrPC to BNSS was intended to modernize and streamline justice. However, if the personnel on the ground continue the old habits of “burking” (suppressing) crimes to keep the books clean, no amount of legislative change will help the common man.

A Call for Higher Intervention

It is imperative that the Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur, and higher authorities in the Uttar Pradesh Police take note of these allegations. There must be a thorough investigation into why the Cyber Police Station and the Vindhyachal Police Station are allegedly bypassing the mandatory FIR process.

Transparency is the only cure for the suspicion of corruption. The PIO must provide the requested information within the stipulated 30-day window. Only then can the public see whether the inaction was a result of administrative negligence or something far more sinister.

Conclusion

Cybercrime is not a “minor” issue; it is a violation of a citizen’s financial integrity and mental peace. The Mirzapur police must realize that every unregistered FIR is a victory for a criminal and a defeat for the law. For the residents of Mirzapur, the hope remains that the RTI process will finally force the gears of justice to turn.

This highlights a systemic two-tier failure in the justice delivery system: Burking (the refusal to register crimes) and Statutory Negligence (the failure to investigate once registered).

When the police fail to “work out” a case, they essentially render the FIR a dead piece of paper. This cycle of inaction creates a “safe zone” for cybercriminals, particularly in regions like Mirzapur where digital literacy may be lower, making the populace more vulnerable.

To address this ground reality, here is a breakdown of the legal hurdles and the specific steps you can take to force the investigation forward.

---

1. The “Burking” Strategy: Why FIRs are Avoided

Police often avoid FIRs to keep “Crime Head” statistics low. In cyber fraud, they frequently use the excuse of “Preliminary Inquiry” to delay registration indefinitely.

• The Legal Counter: The Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P. ruled that FIR registration is mandatory if the information discloses a cognizable offense.¹
• The “Transfer” Trap: As noted in your RTI, transferring a case to the Cyber Cell without an FIR is a procedural bypass. The Cyber Cell is an investigative wing, but the legal “trigger” for investigation remains the FIR at the local Thana.

2. The “No Workout” Reality: Investigative Apathy

Even when an FIR is registered, “Final Reports” (FR) are often filed stating the accused is “untraceable.”

• Circumstantial Corruption: If the police have the transaction IDs and the beneficiary bank details (as provided in your RTI for Pramod Kumar Kushwaha) but still fail to freeze the accounts or track the IP addresses, it suggests either technical incompetence or intentional shielding of the accused.

---

Comparison of Police Responsibility vs. Ground Reality

Procedure	Legal Mandate (BNSS/CrPC)	Ground Reality in Mirzapur
Registration	Mandatory for cognizable crimes.	Dismissed as “complaint” or “application.”
Evidence Collection	Immediate freezing of beneficiary accounts.	Delay allows criminals to withdraw funds.
Jurisdiction	Zero FIR must be filed anywhere.	Victims are shuttled between local Thana and Cyber Cell.
Transparency	Copy of FIR must be given to informant free of cost.	Victims are kept in the dark about the status.

---

3. How to Break the Deadlock

If the RTI response (due by 08/04/2025) confirms that no FIR was filed or no investigation was done, you have the following legal weapons:

• Section 175(3) of BNSS (formerly 156(3) CrPC): You can approach the Metropolitan/Judicial Magistrate. The court can order the police to register the FIR and monitor the investigation.
• The “Nodal Officer” for Cybercrime: Every state has a Nodal Officer (usually an IG or DIG rank). Since the RTI mentions ASP Om Prakash Singh, a formal complaint regarding his office’s inaction should be sent to the ADG (Cyber Crime), Lucknow.
• Protest Petition: If the police file a “Final Report” saying the case is “not worked out,” the victim can file a Protest Petition in court to reject the police report and demand a re-investigation.

---

4. Specific Action for the Current Case

Since you already have the Grievance Numbers (PMOPG/E/2025/0018733 and GOVUP/E/2025/0020726), the next step is to highlight the discrepancy between the portal’s “Action Taken” report and the actual lack of an FIR.

Next Step Recommendation

Would you like me to draft a Formal Complaint to the Police Complaints Authority (PCA)? This body specifically investigates “misconduct” by police officers, including the refusal to register FIRs and the failure to investigate serious crimes.

To help you escalate this matter effectively, I have compiled the contact details of the relevant public authorities and the digital portals where you can lodge formal complaints against the police’s inaction.

---

1. Primary Public Authorities in Mirzapur

Since your RTI is already directed at the ASP Operation, the next logical step is to escalate to his superiors in the district and range.

Office / Designation	Name of Officer	Mobile / CUG	Email Address
DIG Vindhyachal Range	Shri Rakesh Prakash Singh	9454400215	digrmir@nic.in
SP Mirzapur	Shri Somen Verma	9454400299	spmzr-up@nic.in
ASP Operation (Mirzapur)	Shri Manish Kumar Mishra	9454401105	asp-op.mi@up.gov.in
ASP City (Mirzapur)	Shri Nitesh Singh	9454401104	asp-city.mi@up.gov.in
Cyber Police Station (Mzp)	SHO / Inspector	7839876627	ps-cybercrime.mi@up.gov.in

---

2. State-Level Cyber Crime Authorities (Lucknow)

If the local district police are failing to “work out” the case, these are the authorities who oversee all cybercrime investigations in Uttar Pradesh.

• ADG (Cyber Crime) UP: Binod K. Singh
  • Phone: 0522-2390538
  • Email: adg-cybercrime.lu@up.gov.in
• SP (Cyber Crime Thana) Lucknow: Rajesh Kumar Yadav
  • Mobile: 9454400581
  • Email: sp-cyber.lu@up.gov.in
• DGP Complaint Cell:
  • Email: dgpcontrol-up@nic.in / digcomplaint-up@nic.in

---

3. Anti-Corruption and Misconduct Portals

Since your concern involves a possible “nexus” or corruption (circumstantial evidence), these bodies are specifically designed to investigate police misconduct.

• Anti-Corruption Organization (ACO) Mirzapur Unit:
  • Mobile: 9454402487
  • Email: aco-mirzapur.mi@up.gov.in
• UP Police Complaints Authority (PCA):
  • You can file a formal complaint against the SHO or ASP for non-registration of FIR and negligence.
  • Address: Police Bhawan, Gomti Nagar Vistar, Lucknow.
• Jansunwai (Samadhan) Portal:
  • Link: http://jansunwai.up.nic.in/
  • Note: Use this to specifically report that your previous grievance (GOVUP/E/2025/0020726) was closed without a registered FIR.

---

4. Legal Action Links & Apps

• UPCOP App: You can attempt to file an e-FIR for “Cyber Crime” directly. If the app rejects it or it remains “pending,” this is further evidence for your court case.
• National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal: https://www.cybercrime.gov.in (Report the financial fraud here; this triggers a notification to the state’s nodal officer).

Recommended Next Step

Since you have the mobile numbers, would you like me to draft a formal WhatsApp/SMS grievance text that you can send directly to the DIG Vindhyachal (9454400215) or SP Mirzapur (9454400299)? This often gets a faster response than a standard email.