RTI & Cyber Fraud Investigation is demonstrating how the police are inadequately utilizing the Right to Information (RTI) in a manner that could reveal crucial facts in cybercrime investigations. This neglect, consequently, hampers the transparency of the investigation process and, as a result, allows criminals to evade accountability. By failing to employ RTI effectively, the police are inadvertently providing a shield for offenders who exploit loopholes in the system. Therefore, it raises serious concerns regarding the integrity of law enforcement and the justice system. This situation, ultimately, underscores the urgent need for reform and greater accountability in handling cybercrime cases.
The blog post highlights a critical struggle for transparency in the face of bureaucratic resistance.
Here are the key takeaways:
- The Transparency Gap: The core issue is not just the failed investigation of a ₹4,999 fraud. It also involves the deliberate withholding of information regarding how and why the police decided to close the case.
- The “Pre-emptive” Response Tactic: Essentially, the appellant exposes a logical fallacy. Specifically, this fallacy is utilized by the Public Information Officer (PIO). Furthermore, the PIO asserts that information was provided “in advance” of the request. This tactic is strategically employed to evade answering specific questions regarding the investigation’s failure.
- Police Accountability: The post questions the competence of the Mirzapur Police. Specifically, they file a “Final Report” (closure) without adequately tracing the KYC details of the fraudulent bank accounts. Moreover, they fail to utilize the 1930 helpline data. Consequently, this leads to accusations of professional negligence.
- Systemic Evasion: The appellant argues that police personnel are “running away” from RTI queries because they fear that transparency will reveal their failure to follow standard operating procedures in cybercrime.
- The Fight for “Right to Reason”: Beyond just getting money back, the case is not only a pursuit of financial restitution but also a vital examination of the administrative principle that every citizen has the undeniable right to know the logic and reasons behind a public authority’s decision to halt the pursuit of a criminal.
- Legal Recourse: Currently, the matter is serving as a test for the U.P. Information Commission, which is seeking to penalize the PIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act. This action aims to effectively discourage the practice of providing “misleading and false” information to citizens.
The Fight for Accountability: When Cyber Fraud Investigations Hit a Dead End in Uttar Pradesh
In an era where the “Digital India” initiative seeks to empower every citizen through technology, the dark side of connectivity—cyber fraud—has become a looming shadow. While the government promotes digital transactions, the mechanisms to protect citizens from digital predators often appear sluggish, opaque, and occasionally dismissive.
A recent case involving the Uttar Pradesh Police and a persistent RTI (Right to Information) activist, Mr. Yogi M. P. Singh, poignantly highlights a growing systemic crisis; namely, the perceived stagnation of cybercrime investigations and, consequently, the subsequent shielding of information from the public eye.
The Anatomy of a “Cold Case”: The ₹4,999 Fraud
The genesis of this legal battle stems from a relatively small but significant incident. Police registered a case under FIR No. 226/2023 at Police Station Katra, Mirzapur, involving sections 420 IPC and 66C/66D of the IT Act. The victim, Keshav Pratap Singh, lost ₹4,999 to cyber-fraudsters—a sum that might seem trivial to a large institution but represents a breach of trust and financial security for him.
Despite a formal investigation led by Inspector Arvind Kumar Yadav, the investigators reached a predictable and frustrating conclusion: a “Final Report” (FR). In police parlance, this essentially means they closed the investigation because they could not find the “accused.”
The RTI Paradox: Did They Provide Information Before We Asked?
The core of the current dispute isn’t just the failed investigation, but the evasive tactics used by the Public Information Officer (PIO) to avoid transparency.
When Mr. Singh filed an RTI request seeking specific details—such as the investigation report, bank KYC details of the fraudulent accounts, and the names of officers who approved the closure of the case—he received a baffling response. The PIO stated that they had already provided the information in a previous application (Online-95/2024) and claimed that the State Information Commission had disposed of the matter here.
The Appellant’s Logical Challenge:
Mr. Singh’s appeal raises a poignant question: How can a PIO provide information about the closure of an investigation before the appellant has even requested it in light of the new developments? The earlier RTI focused on the registration of the FIR, while the new RTI examines the investigation’s failure. By conflating the two, the police face accusations of using “misleading information” to stonewall the applicant.
Five Critical Questions the Police Refuse to Answer
The appeal highlights five specific points of inquiry that are vital for ensuring police accountability in cybercrime:
- The Investigation Report: If the investigation concludes and they file a Final Report, the law requires that the documents be accessible to the complainant.
- Accountability of Approval: Who is the competent officer who looked at the evidence and decided it was “enough” to stop looking for the criminal?
- The Role of 1930: India’s national cybercrime helpline (1930) serves as a frontline defense. The appellant seeks to know if the local investigator actually utilized the data from this helpline.
- KYC and Bank Negligence: In almost every cyber fraud, money is moved to a bank account. Mr. Singh asks: Were these accounts “bogus”? If so, why was no action taken against the bank staff for failing to follow KYC (Know Your Customer) norms?
- The Right to Reason: Under administrative law, a citizen has the “Right to Reason”—the right to know why a public authority failed to perform its duty.
The Systemic Failure: Incompetence or Indifference?
The stagnation of this case points to a broader issue within the UP Police’s cyber wing. When a Final Report is filed due to “lack of information about the accused,” it often signals a lack of technical expertise or a lack of willpower to pursue inter-state leads.
Cybercriminals often operate across state borders, requiring investigators to coordinate with banks and service providers in real-time. If the police simply compile 19 pages of “case diary” and then give up, it emboldens fraudsters and creates a “culture of impunity.
How can it be justified to withhold public services arbitrarily and promote anarchy, lawlessness, and chaos by making a mockery of the law of the land?” — Yogi M. P. Singh, Second Appeal.
The Legal Standpoint: Section 19(3) and Beyond
Mr. Singh has now moved the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission in a Second Appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act. In this context, he is not just asking for documents; rather, he is also requesting that the Commission invoke Section 20, which allows for penalties against PIOs who “maliciously” deny information or provide misleading facts.
The appellant argues that the police are “running away” from accountability because they are frightened that their investigative gaps will be exposed. If a court or commission finds that the police ignored blatant leads (like the bank account holders’ identities), it could lead to charges of professional negligence.
Conclusion: Why This Matters to You
You might think a ₹4,999 fraud is too small to warrant a Second Appeal at the State Commission level. However, this case is about the precedent. If the police can successfully hide the details of a small fraud investigation, they can do the same for larger scams.
A healthy democracy relies on the “confidence of the citizenry.” When the police fail to catch a criminal, the least they can do is be transparent about why they failed. Unfortunately, by hiding behind procedural technicalities and misleading RTI replies, the Mirzapur Police are not just closing a case; rather, they are effectively closing the door on public trust.
What do you think? Should the police be held financially accountable if they fail to track digital footprints in a “Digital India?
To assist you in tracking your case and, furthermore, reaching out to the relevant authorities, here are the verified contact details and web links for the public authorities mentioned in your appeal.
1. Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC)(RTI & Cyber Fraud Investigation)
This is the body where your Second Appeal (A-20250400810) is currently registered.
- Office Address: 7/7A, RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh – 226010
- Phone Number: 0522-2724930
- Email: webmaster-upic@up.gov.in (General) / jansu-section.upic@up.gov.in (PIO Section)
- Official Website: upsic.up.gov.in
- Case Status Link: UPIC Citizen Portal (You can use your Appeal Registration Number here).
2. Public Information Officer (PIO) – Mirzapur Police (RTI & Cyber Fraud Investigation)
This is the respondent you are accusing of providing misleading information.
- Name: Sri Om Prakash Singh (Additional Superintendent of Police, Operation)
- Office: Office of the Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur, PIN 231001
- Mobile Number: 9454401105 (CUG Number)
- Email: asp-op.mi@up.gov.in
3. First Appellate Authority (FAA) – Mirzapur Police (RTI & Cyber Fraud Investigation)
This is the senior officer who did not provide an answer to your first appeal.
- Name: Sri Somen Varma (Superintendent of Police / DIG Mirzapur)
- Office: Office of the Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur, PIN 231001
- Mobile Number: 9454400299 (CUG Number)
- Email: spmzr-up@nic.in
- Landline: 05442-252578
Summary of Key Identification Numbers (RTI & Cyber Fraud Investigation)
| Description | Registration / ID Number |
| RTI Application No. | SPMZR/R/2024/60226 |
| UPIC Second Appeal No. | A-20250400810 |
| Police FIR No. | 226/2023 (Kotwali Katra) |
| UPIC Welcome ID | UPICR20240000149 |
Important Web Links for Your Case (RTI & Cyber Fraud Investigation)
- UP RTI Online Portal: rtionline.up.gov.in (To file new applications or track existing ones).
- UP Police Official Directory: uppolice.gov.in/Officials (To verify current officer postings in Mirzapur).
- Cyber Crime Portal: [suspicious link removed] (To track the status of the initial fraud complaint).
Would you like me to help you draft a formal letter to the Chief Information Commissioner to request an urgent date for your online hearing?
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.