U.P. police promotes cyber fraud: 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. Indeed, for citizens in Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, this digital frontier is increasingly turning into a lawless wasteland. The central and state governments promote “Digital India,” yet a troubling reality persists at the grassroots level: U.P. police promotes cyber fraud by turning away victims and refusing to register their complaints, leaving them financially devastated and without legal recourse.

Recently, activist Yogi M. P. Singh filed an RTI application (Registration Number: SPMZR/R/2025/60058) that highlights a systemic failure within the Mirzapur Police Department. Specifically, 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. Although Kushwaha filed multiple grievances through the PMO and Chief Minister’s portals, the police have allegedly still failed to register a First Information Report (FIR).

The Legal Mandate vs. Ground Reality (U.P. police promotes cyber fraud)

First and foremost, the police carry a primary duty: uphold the law and protect citizens. Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) — which has replaced the CrPC — officers must register an FIR whenever a complaint discloses the commission of a cognizable offense. Since cyber fraud involves cheating and unauthorized access to funds, it falls squarely within this category.

When police refuse to register an FIR, they don’t merely commit a procedural lapse; rather, they violate the fundamental rights of the victim. In Mirzapur, for example, officers have developed a pattern of “transferring” matters to the Cyber Cell without an FIR number, and as a result, this creates a legal limbo. Without an FIR, no official record of the crime exists, no time-bound investigation follows, and no one remains accountable for recovering the stolen funds.

How U.P. Police Promotes Cyber Fraud Through Inaction

Ultimately, the refusal to register FIRs sends a dangerous message to the underworld: cybercrime in Mirzapur goes unpunished. Consequently, law enforcement’s inaction acts as a “green signal” for fraudsters. Moreover, when criminals realize that police hesitate to document the crime, their sense of impunity grows. In effect, every unregistered complaint is one more way that U.P. police promotes cyber fraud instead of curbing it — and this negligence goes beyond hurting 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, therefore, raises a provocative but necessary question about the motives behind this inaction. In legal terms, two types of evidence can prove corruption:

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, therefore, serves as strong circumstantial evidence. In other words, it suggests a possible nexus between cybercriminals and certain police officials, and it is exactly this kind of pattern that shows U.P. police promotes cyber fraud rather than merely neglecting to stop it. For instance, if police intentionally suppress the “crime statistics” by declining to register cases, they may be doing so to project a false image of a low crime rate — or worse, to protect the perpetrators.

Key Questions Raised via RTI

Overall, the transparency that Yogi M. P. Singh seeks through the RTI Act marks a vital step toward accountability. Specifically, the application poses five critical questions to the ASP Operations (PIO Om Prakash Singh) that the public deserves answered:

• Accountability for Inquiry: Who, first of all, bears responsibility for accepting “arbitrary reports” that dismiss grievances without action?
• The Reason for Non-Registration: If, indeed, police have not registered an FIR in the Kushwaha case, what specific legal justification explains this refusal?
• Procedural Validity: Under which section of the BNSS (formerly CrPC), then, is an investigation proceeding if no FIR exists?
• Jurisdictional Transfers: How, in fact, can a matter transfer from the Vindhyachal Police Station to the Cyber Police Station without officers first registering a formal case?
• Statistical Transparency: Overall, how many cyber fraud FIRs has the Vindhyachal Station House Officer (SHO) actually registered over the last three financial years (2022–2025)?

The Threat to Public Trust

Above all, public trust forms 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. As a result, the “system” then begins to look like a wall designed to protect the powerful and the criminal rather than a shield for the innocent — a dynamic that only reinforces how U.P. police promotes cyber fraud by making victims feel that reporting is futile.

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

A Call for Higher Intervention

Given this pattern, the Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur, and higher authorities in the Uttar Pradesh Police must therefore take note of these allegations. Specifically, a thorough investigation needs to determine why the Cyber Police Station and the Vindhyachal Police Station are allegedly bypassing the mandatory FIR process.

Indeed, transparency remains the only cure for the suspicion of corruption. Under the law, the PIO must provide the requested information within the stipulated 30-day window. Only then can the public see whether the inaction resulted from administrative negligence or something far more sinister.

Conclusion: U.P. Police Promotes Cyber Fraud Through Silence

To be clear, cybercrime is not a “minor” issue; rather, it violates a citizen’s financial integrity and mental peace. Ultimately, the Mirzapur police must realize that every unregistered FIR marks a victory for a criminal and a defeat for the law. Still, for the residents of Mirzapur, hope remains that the RTI process will finally force the gears of justice to turn.

Overall, this case 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). Together, these two failures show exactly how U.P. police promotes cyber fraud in practice — not through active participation in the crime, but through the refusal to stop it.

Essentially, when police fail to “work out” a case, they render the FIR a dead piece of paper. This cycle of inaction, in turn, creates a “safe zone” for cybercriminals, particularly in regions like Mirzapur, where lower digital literacy makes the population more vulnerable.

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

---

1. The “Burking” Strategy: How U.P. Police Promotes Cyber Fraud by Avoiding FIRs

Typically, police avoid FIRs to keep “Crime Head” statistics low. In cyber fraud cases specifically, they frequently invoke the excuse of a “Preliminary Inquiry” to delay registration indefinitely — a bureaucratic stalling tactic that is itself part of how U.P. police promotes cyber fraud on the ground.

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

2. The “No Workout” Reality: Investigative Apathy

Even when police register an FIR, they often file “Final Reports” (FR) stating the accused is “untraceable.”

• Circumstantial Corruption: For instance, if police hold the transaction IDs and beneficiary bank details — as the RTI shows for Pramod Kumar Kushwaha — yet still fail to freeze the accounts or track the IP addresses, this 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

Assuming the RTI response (due by 08/04/2025) confirms that police filed no FIR and conducted no investigation, you then have the following legal options:

• Section 175(3) of BNSS (formerly 156(3) CrPC): Firstly, you can approach the Metropolitan/Judicial Magistrate. From there, the court can order 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 names ASP Om Prakash Singh, you should also send a formal complaint about his office’s inaction to the ADG (Cyber Crime), Lucknow.
• Protest Petition: Alternatively, if police file a “Final Report” claiming 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 hold the Grievance Numbers (PMOPG/E/2025/0018733 and GOVUP/E/2025/0020726), the next step, therefore, involves highlighting the discrepancy between the portal’s “Action Taken” report and the actual lack of an FIR — the clearest paper-trail evidence of how U.P. police promotes cyber fraud by documenting inaction as resolution.

Next Step Recommendation

Would you, for instance, like a draft Formal Complaint to the Police Complaints Authority (PCA)? After all, 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, below are the contact details for the relevant public authorities and digital portals where you can lodge formal complaints against the police’s inaction.

---

1. Primary Public Authorities in Mirzapur

Since the RTI already targets the ASP Operation, the next logical step, then, involves escalating 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, however, the local district police continue to fail at “working out” the case, the following authorities 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), the following bodies, accordingly, specifically 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, for example, 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 portal specifically to report that authorities closed your previous grievance (GOVUP/E/2025/0020726) without registering an FIR.

---

4. Legal Action Links & Apps

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

Recommended Next Step: Stop U.P. Police From Promoting Cyber Fraud in Your Case

Since you now have the mobile numbers, would you, alternatively, like a draft formal WhatsApp/SMS grievance text that you can send directly to the DIG Vindhyachal (9454400215) or SP Mirzapur (9454400299)? Generally, this approach gets a faster response than a standard email, and it puts pressure where it counts most: on the officers whose silence lets fraud go unpunished.299)? This often gets a faster response than a standard email.

Related Posts like U.P. police promotes cyber

• Gorakhpur Forest Division Faces RTI Scrutiny
• Cyber Crime Investigation and Right to Information
• Cyber Fraud Investigation Status in Uttar Pradesh
• Addressing RTI Violations by PIO NHM U.P.
• Cyber Fraud & Police Accountability in Local Cases