The team is investigating tax fraud of rupees 350 million. The most respected chief information commissioner of Uttar Pradesh is monitoring the investigation.
Yogi M P Singh alleged that fraudulent elements misused his permanent account number to commit this tax fraud.
🚨 Unraveling a ₹350 Million Tax Fraud: Allegations of Delay Under Judicial Monitoring
Introduction: A Case of Financial Misuse and Administrative Delay
A serious case of alleged tax fraud, totaling a staggering ₹350 million, has emerged in Uttar Pradesh. The Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) of Uttar Pradesh is actively overseeing the investigation into this massive financial crime. Authorities committed the fraud through the alleged misuse of an individual’s Permanent Account Number (PAN). The case presents high complexity, involving nearly 200 companies and transactions detailed in tax information summaries. The appellant continuously claims procedural delays, while local police personnel in Mirzapur allegedly fail to comply.
This article examines the details of the complaint. It looks into the judicial directions issued by the CIC’s court. The article also discusses the appellant’s persistent efforts to ensure timely and effective investigation. It highlights the critical intersection of financial crime, police procedure, and oversight by constitutional functionaries.
The Core Allegations: Misuse of PAN and Massive Fraud
The plaintiff in FIR No. 291/23, Mahesh Pratap Singh (Yogi M P Singh), filed the case. Authorities registered it under Section 420 IPC and under Sections 66C and 66D of the IT Act at Police Station Katra, District Mirzapur.
The crux of the complaint is the fraudulent misuse of the appellant’s PAN by approximately 200 companies. This misuse facilitated fraudulent transactions amounting to ₹350,000,000 (350 million Rupees). The appellant explicitly states that the details of these delinquents are in the official Tax Information Summary (TIS). The full transaction summary is also readily available there.
Judicial Oversight: The CIC’s Monitoring Role
The investigation is not a standard local police matter. The most respected Chief Information Commissioner of Uttar Pradesh is actively monitoring it. They preside over Court S-1. This fact significantly raises the procedural standard expected of the police.
Key Directives from the Hearing on June 10, 2025:
On June 10, 2025, Court S-1’s Presiding Officer issued a clear set of directions. This was done after reviewing the investigation report. Inspector Jitendra Kumar, the police representative from Kotwali Police Station Katra, submitted the report.
- Direction to Inform Appellant: Inspector Jitendra Kumar received specific instructions. He was to inform the appellant about the case’s progress report.
- Direction for Action and Report: He received instructions. He must “present the report of the action taken before the Commission on the next hearing date.”
- Direction to Dispose of Allegation: The police must address the applicant’s allegation properly. They must provide revised information and ensure that they inform the Commission about it.
The next date of hearing was fixed for July 16, 2025.
Allegations of Non-Compliance and Procrastination
The appellant sent an email on July 11, 2025. They addressed the email to the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) in Mirzapur. The appellant formally represented their concerns. They emphasize the alleged failure of the investigation officer to comply with the CIC’s order. This happened just five days before the next scheduled hearing.
The Appellant’s Key Concerns:
- Failure to Dispose of Representation: As of July 11, 2025, the concerned investigation officer had not disposed of the applicant’s representation. The officer had yet to address the applicant’s concerns.
- Impeding Legal/Constitutional Rights: The appellant contends that he has the “legal right but also constitutional right” to submit objections. He can object to the police’s action report before the competent authority (the CIC) formally receives it. This is especially true if he identifies any deficiencies (Lacunae). The delay hinders his ability to exercise this right effectively before the July 16 hearing.
- Questioning the Investigation’s Credibility: There is readily available evidence in the details of 200 companies. Along with the ₹350 million fraud in the TIS, the police’s ongoing statement is strongly questioned. They are still “collecting the evidence.” The appellant raises a pointed query: Does the Mirzapur Police know how to deal with the matter? It is currently processed under the monitoring of constitutional functionaries. This implies a failure to meet the higher standards demanded by the CIC’s oversight.
- Issue of Procrastination: The appellant contends that the entire matter is “languishing because of procrastination of concerned police personnel.”
Promoting Paperless Work: An Appeal for Efficiency
Beyond the core subject of the tax fraud, the appellant appeals to the authorities. The appellant asks them to comply with the Uttar Pradesh Government’s order for paperless work in departments. Moreover the appellant requests adherence to these guidelines. The appellant cites the guidelines of the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) 360/2021. This call urges the department to implement modern, efficient, and cost-saving administrative practices. It emphasizes the need to “curb extra burden on the public exchequer.” This detail underscores the appellant’s interest in systemic efficiency alongside justice in his specific case.
Conclusion: A Call for Accountability and Compliance
The case of the ₹350 million tax fraud in Mirzapur presents a compelling example. It illustrates a common challenge in the criminal justice system. There are allegations of procedural delay. There is also inaction against the backdrop of serious financial crime. The fact that the investigation is overseen by the Chief Information Commissioner—a constitutional functionary—elevates the issue beyond routine administrative inefficiency.
The appellant’s final, humble request to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur, is straightforward. It demands action “in accordance with the law” and compliance with clear judicial directions. The impending hearing on July 16, 2025, is crucial. It will determine if the local police have fulfilled their obligations. They must provide the necessary information through the disposal report. This report goes to both the appellant and the Commission. This ensures that justice is not delayed by “procrastination.”
Next Steps
Would you like me to look up the powers and jurisdiction of the Chief Information Commissioner in Uttar Pradesh? Or would you like me to find general information about Section 420 IPC? I can also find information about the relevant sections of the IT Act (66C and 66D).
Here are the official web links and details for the Cyber Police and UPIC (UP Information Commission) as of 2026:
1. UP Cyber Police (Cyber Crime)
The Uttar Pradesh Cyber Police operates under the state’s Police Headquarters to handle financial frauds and digital crimes.
- Official Website: uppolice.gov.in/article/en/cyber-crime
- National Reporting Portal: [suspicious link removed] (For filing formal complaints)
- Emergency Helpline: 1930 (Call immediately within the “Golden Hour” of a financial fraud).
- Email:
sp-cyber.lu@up.gov.in
2. UPIC (Uttar Pradesh Information Commission)
UPIC is the state authority responsible for overseeing the Right to Information (RTI) Act. It provides a platform for citizens to file second appeals and complaints regarding RTI requests.
- Official Website: upsic.up.gov.in
- RTI Application Portal: rtionline.up.gov.in
- Office Address: 7/7A, RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, UP.
- Contact Number: 0522-2724930
- Email:
webmaster-upic@up.gov.in
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.