Uttar Pradesh Police’s inaction on cyber fraud cases has become a growing concern for residents, as the mounting number of complaints continues to rise without adequate responses. Many victims report feeling helpless, as perpetrators often escape justice due to the police’s slow investigation processes and lack of technical expertise. The need for specialised training in cybercrime is evident, but currently, the resources allocated for tackling these issues remain insufficient. Public trust in law enforcement is eroding, prompting calls for reforms to enhance police effectiveness and ensure timely action against cybercriminals to safeguard citizens’ digital welfare.

Key takeaways from this blog post

Based on the detailed account of your struggle for transparency, here are the key takeaways highlighting the systemic issues within the current investigation and RTI process:

1. The Logical Impossibility (Chronological Conflict) (Uttar Pradesh Police’s Inaction)

The most glaring issue is the mathematical and logical contradiction in the police response. The Public Information Officer (PIO) claimed that information was provided on December 3, 2024, in response to an RTI application that you did not even file until December 7, 2024. This suggests a “copy-paste” or “pre-scripted” denial intended to bypass the request without reviewing its specific merits.

2. Shift in Information Scope

The police are attempting to conflate two different stages of the legal process: (Uttar Pradesh Police’s Inaction)

• Past Information: Related to the registration of the FIR.
• Requested Information: Relates to the post-investigation phase, specifically the “Final Report” (closure report), the reasons for failing to find a breakthrough, and the scrutiny of the digital trail. By citing the previous disposal, the PIO is ignoring your right to know why the investigation was unsuccessful.

3. Failure to Trace the “Digital Footprint”

Despite the availability of the 1930 cybercrime helpline and banking transaction logs, the investigation has yielded no results. The RTI specifically targets:

• The KYC (Know Your Customer) details of the fraudulent accounts.
• Potential negligence or collusion by bank staff in allowing “mule” or bogus accounts to operate.
• The actual utility of the 1930 helpline data in this specific case.

4. Accountability of Superior Officers (Uttar Pradesh Police’s Inaction)

A core takeaway is the demand for accountability regarding who authorised the closure of the case.The appeal seeks to determine whether the competent officer made a genuine effort to close the case or if the closure was simply to reduce the number of unsolved files.

5. Violation of the “Right to Reason”

The blog emphasises that in a sound administrative and legal system, a citizen has an indispensable right to know the reasons behind a state action—in this case, the state’s failure to protect property and catch a criminal. Denying this information is characterised as a “mockery” of the RTI Act 2005. (Uttar Pradesh Police’s Inaction)

Summary Table: RTI Timeline Discrepancy

Event Date Reported Status Claimed Info Delivery 03/12/2024 Before Application SIC Disposal Claimed 04/12/2024 Before Application Actual RTI Filed 07/12/2024. The actual online hearing start date is 26/06/2025, pending.

Justice Delayed and Data Denied: The RTI Battle Against Cyber Fraud Apathy in Uttar Pradesh

The digital revolution in India has brought unprecedented convenience, but it has also opened a Pandora’s box of cybercrime. While the government promotes a “Digital India”, the ground reality for victims of cyber fraud is often a harrowing journey through bureaucratic indifference. A recent case involving Mr. Yogi M. P. Singh and the Mirzapur Police highlights a disturbing trend: not only is the police force struggling to solve cybercrime, but it is also allegedly weaponising the Right to Information (RTI) Act to obfuscate its lack of progress.

The Genesis of the Grievance: A Case of Cyber Theft

The issue began with a fraudulent transaction involving ₹4,999—a sum that might seem small to an institution but represents a significant loss to a common citizen. FIR No. 226/2023 was registered at Police Station Katra under Section 420 of the IPC and Sections 66C/66D of the IT Act.

Despite the use of specialised tools and the national cybercrime reporting helpline (1930), the investigation seems to have reached a standstill, leading to a “Final Report” (FR) that effectively closes the case without any significant progress.

The RTI Paradox: Information Provided Before it was Asked?

When the victim’s representative, Mr Singh, sought transparency regarding the failed investigation, he encountered a logical impossibility. In his RTI application filed on December 7, 2024, he requested specific details:

• The final investigation report.
• The name of the officer who accepted the closure of the case.
• The KYC details of the fraudulent accounts.
• Action taken (or lack thereof) against banks for hosting bogus accounts.

The Police Response: (Uttar Pradesh Police’s Inaction)

The Public Information Officer (PIO) of Mirzapur claimed that all information had already been provided on December 3, 2024, and that the State Information Commission disposed of the matter on December 4, 2024.

The Core Discrepancy: How can a public information officer claim to have provided information on December 3rd for an application they filed on December 7th?

This timing issue suggests that rejecting RTI (Right to Information) queries may be standard practice, with officials using prior, unrelated cases to dismiss new, specific requests.

1930 Helpline: A Tool for Help or a Cosmetic Feature?

One of the most pressing questions raised in the appeal concerns the 1930 Cyber Crime Helpline. The appellant sought to know what specific data or assistance the investigation officer received from the 1930 dashboard.

In many cyber fraud cases, the “golden hour”—the first few hours after the fraud—is critical. If the 1930 helpline had been utilised, the money could have been frozen in the recipient’s account. By denying this information, the police avoid accountability for whether they acted swiftly or let the trail go cold through negligence.

The Accountability Gap in Banking (Uttar Pradesh Police’s Inaction)

A significant portion of the RTI query focused on the KYC (Know Your Customer) details of the accounts where the stolen money was transferred. Cybercriminals often use “mule accounts” created with forged documents.

Under the law, if a bank fails to conduct proper KYC, it can be held liable. By refusing to disclose the action taken against bank staff or the details of these accounts, the Mirzapur police are effectively shielding not just the fraudsters, but also the potential negligence within the banking sector.

The Legal Battle: Appeal A-20250400810

The matter has now reached the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission (UPSIC). The appellant’s second appeal (Registration No. A-20250400810) is set for an online hearing on June 26, 2025.

The appellant’s argument is clear: the information previously provided (if any) related to the registration of the FIR. The current request is for the investigation documents and the reasoning for closing the case. Under the RTI Act, “right to reason” is an indispensable part of a sound administrative system.

Summary of the Appellant’s Claims:

Issue: Appellant’s Position Chronology: Information cannot be “pre-delivered” before an application is filed. Scope FIR registration info is not the same as investigation closure info. Transparency: The public has a right to know why the police failed to trace a digital footprint.

Conclusion: A Mockery of the RTI Act?

The Right to Information Act 2005 empowers citizens and ensures that public servants remain accountable. When a PIO provides dates that defy logic and uses past disposals to mask current failures, it constitutes a mockery of the law. (Uttar Pradesh Police’s Inaction)

For the residents of Uttar Pradesh, this case is a litmus test. If the police can avoid explaining why they cannot solve a cybercrime—especially when the digital trail is often clearer than a physical one—then the “Digital India” dream remains vulnerable to the shadows of administrative apathy.

The aggrieved’s eyes are now on the State Information Commission. Will the commission uphold the spirit of transparency, or will bureaucratic technicalities win the day?

To assist you with your upcoming hearing and further correspondence, here are the structured contact details for the relevant public authorities involved in your case.

1. Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission (UPSIC)(Uttar Pradesh Police’s Inaction)

This is the appellate authority presiding over your case (A-20250400810).

• Hearing Court: S-9 (Smt. Shakuntala Gautam, State Information Commissioner)
• Official Email for S-9: hearingcourts9.upic@up.gov.in
• General UPSIC Phone: 0522-2724930
• UPSIC Website: https://upsic.up.gov.in
• Online Hearing Link: https://upsic.up.gov.in/cispu/onlinehearing/caa64f
• Address: 7/7A, RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh 226010.

2. Public Information Officer (PIO) – Mirzapur Police (Uttar Pradesh Police’s Inaction)

These are the officers responsible for providing (or, in your case, allegedly denying) the information.

DesignationName (As per Records)Mobile / CUGOfficial EmailPIO / Addl. SP (Operation)Manish Kumar Mishra9454401105asp-op.mi@up.gov.inDIG / SSP MirzapurSomen Barma9454400299spmzr-up@nic.inAddl. SP (City)Nitesh Singh9454401104asp-city.mi@up.gov.in

3. Important Web Links & Portals (Uttar Pradesh Police’s Inaction)

• UP RTI Online Portal: rtionline.up.gov.in (To verify the status of the matter disposed of by the State Information Commission, Registration Number SPMZR/R/2024/60226).
• UP Police RTI List: uppolice.gov.in/frmRTIList.aspx (Unit-wise list of PIOs).
• National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal: [suspicious link removed] (For tracking 1930 helpline complaints).

Pro-Tip for your hearing on 26/06/2025:(Uttar Pradesh Police’s Inaction)

When you log in to the hearing link, ensure you have your Application ID (SPMZR/R/2024/60226) and the Appeal Number (A-20250400810) ready.

Critical Note: During the hearing, specifically point out that PIO Manish Kumar Mishra (9454401105) is claiming information was provided on 03/12/2024, which is before you even filed the RTI on 07/12/2024. Use the emails from asp-op.mi@up.gov.in as evidence of this logical discrepancy.

Would you like me to draft a “Brief Note of Arguments” that you can