Navigating Section 91 CrPC & Police shows how Investigation Officers frustrate the victims in criminal cases by misusing sections of BNSS/CrPC. This manipulation of legal provisions not only aggravates the distress of the victims but also hinders the pursuit of justice. Often, victims find themselves entangled in a complex web of procedural delays and bureaucratic obstacles that further exacerbate their trauma. The lack of proper accountability for Investigation Officers creates an environment where manipulation becomes easy. Victims are left feeling powerless and unheard, leading to a significant erosion of trust in the legal system. It is crucial to address these issues to ensure that victims receive fair treatment and that justice is not merely an abstract concept but a reality.

Navigating Section 91 CrPC: A Victim’s Battle Against Bureaucratic Identity Theft

Civic administrative transparency and government accountability often hit roadblocks when regional enforcement systems fail to communicate seamlessly with central databases. Consequently, a stark example of this bottleneck is currently unfolding in Uttar Pradesh. Here, a local resident and activist over the age of 70, Yogi M. P. Singh (Mahesh Pratap Singh), finds himself defending his time and peace against repeated police notices. In fact, this happens despite him being the documented victim of a major corporate identity theft syndicate.

The issue stems from a notice issued under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) by the Cyber Crime Police Station in Mirzapur. Ultimately, it highlights a critical systemic flaw. Why must a victim repeatedly verify their identity when the state’s own records already hold the definitive identity of the fraudster?

Navigating Section 91 CrPC & Police: Compliance vs. Redundant Appearances

On 1 July 2026, Inspector Dhananjay Kumar Rai of the Mirzapur Cyber Crime Police Station served a formal notice under Section 91 CrPC regarding Case Crime No. 291/2023. This statutory provision empowers an investigating officer to demand any document or electronic record necessary for an ongoing investigation. Accordingly, the police directed the applicant to produce original identity proofs, bank statements, and relevant Income Tax department communications.

Statutory compliance remains an essential part of the criminal justice system. However, the core issue here centers on the logistical burden and lack of administrative empathy shown to an older citizen. Furthermore, a multi-year identity fraud scheme generates a massive volume of financial data. Generating physical paper photocopies of hundreds of pages of tax communications is logistically unfeasible. Therefore, it is entirely unnecessary in an era governed by the Information Technology Act.

Central Government Clean Chit vs. Local Police Inertia (Navigating Section 91 CrPC & Police)

The most glaring anomaly in Case Crime No. 291/2023 involves the contradiction between central investigative findings and local police actions. Specifically, fraudsters criminally compromised and misused the applicant’s Permanent Account Number (PAN) to execute fake House Rent Allowance (HRA) claims. (Navigating Section 91 CrPC & Police)

Notably, a premier federal authority already thoroughly investigated this identity theft: The Directorate of Income Tax (Intelligence & Criminal Investigation). Following their exhaustive inquiry into the exact same records, the central authority officially concluded that:

• External fraudsters criminally manipulated the applicant’s identity parameters.
• Moreover, the bogus financial transactions linked to his PAN were null and void.
• As a result, the Income Tax Department officially marked the applicant’s tax liability as NIL.

Thus, the Central Government issued a definitive clean sheet. Nevertheless, local cyber crime units continue to deploy investigative resources to demand repetitive personal appearances from the victim. They choose this path rather than tracking the financial trail left by the actual perpetrators.

Actionable Leads Left Unresolved: Case Diary Entry No. 44

In any cyber crime investigation, the ultimate goal involves apprehending the perpetrator using digital and physical leads. In this regard, the investigative team already possesses the definitive breakthrough needed to close the case. (Navigating Section 91 CrPC & Police)

Indeed, the police department’s own Case Diary Entry No. 44 explicitly records the verified name, parentage, and physical location of the principal impersonator:

Identity of Chief Impersonator: Mahesh Pratap Singh, Son of Ashwathappa

Verified Location: Singasandra, Bengaluru, Karnataka

Hence, the investigation has a specific individual and a clear jurisdiction to target in Bengaluru. Yet, local administrative machinery remains fixed on summoning a victim over 70 years old in Mirzapur. Undoubtedly, this raises serious questions regarding investigative priorities. It also highlights gaps in police reforms aimed at protecting vulnerable whistleblowers and older citizens.

The Legal Reality of Section 91 CrPC

To understand this fully, we must dissect a critical legal issue: the actual scope of Section 91 of the CrPC. The text of the law is clear. Primarily, it functions as a summons to produce documents or things. Crucially, the law does not strictly require the physical, in-person presence of the notice recipient if they can deliver the requested documents reliably through alternative legal means.

In this case, the applicant electronically transmitted 16 comprehensive attachments. These included verified digital copies of the Taxpayer Information Summary (TIS), formal representations, and identity documents. Clearly, this transmission fully satisfies the requirements of Section 91. Demanding that a citizen make physical appearances during a period of family mourning violates basic principles of administrative justice. In addition, it ignores police guidelines on victim assistance.

Broader Implications for Administrative Transparency

Overall, this case serves as a template for why structural reforms are urgently required within regional cyber police stations. Public information officers, investigation units, and senior oversight bodies like the Superintendent of Police often operate in silos. As a consequence, the burden of bureaucratic delays invariably falls onto the citizen.

Therefore, true administrative accountability requires swift action. Once a central government department confirms identity theft, local law enforcement must pivot immediately toward prosecution and arrest. In short, they should not trap a victim in a cycle of repetitive document verification.

Core Takeaways for the Public

Protect Victims, Do Not Burden Them: Investigation priorities must shift toward executing warrants against verified suspects named in case diaries rather than troubling older citizens.

Digital Production Equals Legal Compliance: Under Section 91 CrPC, submitting extensive records via official email satisfies the statutory obligation to produce evidence. Consequently, this step renders unfeasible physical copying redundant.

Federal Rulings Hold Precedent: Conclusive findings by central entities like the Income Tax Directorate regarding PAN misuse provide an immediate defense against local claims of financial irregularity.

The difference in dates points to a critical element in your legal stance: the prolonged timeline of the case versus the sudden urgency of the police notice.

• The 2023 Timeline (Case Registration): The FIR was registered three years ago as Case Crime No. 291/2023. This means the state has had this matter on record for years.
• The 2026 Timeline (The Notice): The Section 91 notice was served suddenly on 1 July 2026, demanding your appearance the very next morning on 2 July 2026.

Highlighting this gap reinforces your position. The police have had three years to investigate the active leads in their case diary, whereas you were given less than 24 hours to comply during a time of personal family mourning. This timeline confirms that your immediate digital submission is a reasonable and lawful way to satisfy the notice without causing unnecessary hardship. (Navigating Section 91 CrPC & Police)

This long-term timeline adds significant weight to your legal position, especially regarding your physical cooperation over the last three years. You can use this fact as a key addition to your final documentation to show that your digital submission is not a refusal to cooperate, but a practical necessity.

How This Weakens the Sudden Demand for Personal Appearance

• Established Cooperation: The fact that you have already travelled multiple times to the Kotwali Katra station and that earlier investigation officers have visited your home multiple times proves your consistent, long-term cooperation with law enforcement.
• No Risk of Non-Compliance: Because you have spent years actively assisting the authorities from your home and at the station, the police cannot claim you are avoiding the process.(Navigating Section 91 CrPC & Police)
• Redundancy of the Notice: Since the case dates back to 2023 and officers have already physically interacted with you, demanding a sudden in-person appearance in 2026 for the exact same documents becomes legally redundant.

Based on your official communications and the Section 91 notice served, here are the exact application IDs, email addresses, mobile numbers, and contact details of the public authorities involved in your matter:

1. Primary Investigating Authority (Navigating Section 91 CrPC & Police)

• Public Authority: Cyber Crime Police Station, Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh
• Investigating Officer (IO): Inspector Dhananjay Kumar Rai
• Official Email Address: ps-cybercrime.mi@up.gov.in
• Station Mobile Number: +91-7839876627
• IO Mobile Number: +91-8858503070

2. Supervisory and Oversight Authorities (Navigating Section 91 CrPC & Police)

• Supervisory Officer: Superintendent of Police (SP), Mirzapur
• Official Email Address: spmzr-up@nic.in
• Appellate Authority Link: Raj Kumar Vishwakarma (Uttar Pradesh Information Commission)
• Commission Email Address: hearingcourts1.upic@up.gov.in

3. Relevant Case Identifiers (Navigating Section 91 CrPC & Police)

• Case Crime Number: FIR No. 291/2023
• Statutory Offenses: Section 420 IPC, Section 66C IT Act, and Section 66D IT Act
• Key Internal Evidence Record: Case Diary Entry No. 44

4. Essential Web Portals for Monitoring and Grievances (Navigating Section 91 CrPC & Police)

To track your representations or file cross-griefs regarding delayed action against the principal impersonator in Bengaluru, you can use the following official portals:

• Uttar Pradesh Police Official Portal: uppolice.gov.in
• UP IGRS Jansunwai (Grievance Portal): jansunwai.up.nic.in
• Centralised Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System (CPGRAMS): pgportal.gov.in
• Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC): upsic.up.gov.in