Table of contents
- CBI Investigation Demanded in PAN Identity Theft Worth Over Rs. 54.70 Crore
- The Case at a Glance
- Why a CBI Investigation Is Being Demanded: Scale of the PAN Identity Theft
- A Victim, Not a Suspect — Yet Treated Like One
- The RTI Route: A Long Paper Trail
- Taking It to the Centre: A CBI Investigation Is Demanded via CPGRAMS
- The Jurisdictional Question Behind Why a CBI Investigation Is Demanded, Not Ordered, at District Level
- The Latest Move: An RTI to the Chief Minister Office
- Why This Case Matters Beyond One Complainant
- FAQ: CBI Investigation Demanded in PAN Identity Theft
- Key Reference Details
- Related Posts like CBI Investigation Demanded in PAN Fraud
CBI Investigation Demanded in PAN Identity Theft Worth Over Rs. 54.70 Crore
CBI investigation demanded in PAN identity theft case worth Rs. 54.70 Crore after Mirzapur police probe stalls. Consequently, the complexity of the case has raised serious concerns about the effectiveness of the local law enforcement in handling such significant financial crimes. As the investigation unfolds, it has also become apparent that numerous individuals may be implicated, thus requiring a thorough examination of the involved parties. Moreover, a detailed timeline documenting the events leading to the alleged fraud, along with relevant case numbers, has been compiled for clarity. In addition, records obtained through RTI and CPGRAMS provide crucial insights into the jurisdictional challenges faced by the Mirzapur police. Ultimately, the demand for a CBI investigation underscores the urgency for a more robust and focused approach to tackling identity theft in financial matters.
Key Takeaways
- A CBI investigation is demanded in a PAN identity theft case involving over Rs. 54.70 Crore due to a stalled local police inquiry.
- The complainant faced repeated bureaucratic hurdles, highlighting inefficiencies in the investigation process.
- Official Income Tax documents reveal the scale of fraud is significantly larger than what the local police acknowledged.
- Jurisdictional issues arise as a district authority closed the case without proper consideration of the CBI transfer request.
- The complainant continues to pursue justice through RTI applications and further grievances to central authorities.
Introduction
A CBI investigation is being demanded in a PAN identity theft case that, overall, exposes serious gaps in how India’s local police and central tax authorities share critical financial data. Specifically, in November 2023, police registered a case at Police Station Kotwali Katra, District Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, after unknown persons misused a private citizen’s Permanent Account Number (PAN) — GSWPS0850Q — to open multiple bank accounts and route crores of rupees through them. Even so, nearly three years later, the victim is still fighting not the fraudsters, but the system meant to investigate them.
This post, therefore, lays out the timeline of the case, the scale of the financial fraud, and the roadblocks in the police investigation. In addition, it explains why the complainant now demands a CBI investigation in this PAN identity theft case through CPGRAMS and, more recently, the RTI Act.
The Case at a Glance
In short, the essential facts of the case are as follows:
- Case Crime No.: 291/2023
- Sections: 420 IPC, 66C & 66D of the Information Technology Act
- Police Station: Kotwali Katra, District Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh
- Date of Registration: 11.11.2023
- Complainant: Yogi M. P. Singh (Mahesh Pratap Singh), S/o Late Rajendra Pratap Singh, Resident of Mohalla Surekapuram Colony, Jabalpur Road, Mirzapur, U.P. – 231001
- Complainant’s PAN misused: GSWPS0850Q
Why a CBI Investigation Is Being Demanded: Scale of the PAN Identity Theft
For most of its life, the local Cyber Crime unit’s investigation has focused on just a single fragment of the fraud: transactions worth Rs. 16,12,06,667, identified through one Income Tax e-Campaign notice.
However, official Income Tax Department communications that the complainant obtained tell a much larger story. Specifically, these documents reveal:
- Significant Transactions Notice (Dataset A): Rs. 16,12,06,667
- Non-Filers Reminder Notice (Dataset B): Rs. 34,38,77,662
- Historical Total Misuse Identified: Rs. 51,70,20,384
- Estimated Additional Fraudulent Activity, FY 2025-26: approx. Rs. 3,00,00,000
Taken together, these figures put the true scale of the PAN-based fraud at over Rs. 54.70 Crores — that is, more than three times the amount the local police investigation has formally acknowledged and acted upon. Indeed, this widening gap is exactly why the complainant demands a CBI investigation in this PAN identity theft case.
A Victim, Not a Suspect — Yet Treated Like One
Despite being the victim, and although he is 78 years old, the complainant, a resident of Mirzapur, has repeatedly had to do the legwork of the investigation himself. For example:
- On 1 July 2026, Inspector Dhananjay Kumar Rai issued a fresh notice under Section 91 CrPC, asking the complainant to furnish documents the department already possessed.
- Nevertheless, the very next day, 2 July 2026, the complainant travelled back to personally deliver physical copies of 16 electronic files — tax summaries, income tax clean chits, and identity proofs — by 12:00 PM, even though he had performed his mother’s death-anniversary rituals 36 km away in his native village earlier that same day.
- Although the on-duty Lady Inspector accepted the documents, she nonetheless refused to issue an acknowledgment receipt, citing the absence of the Investigating Officer.
Meanwhile, the case diary (Entry No. 44) names a specific out-of-state suspect based in Bengaluru, Karnataka. Even so, no interstate field action appears to have followed that lead, and as a result, the victim continues to receive repetitive statutory notices instead.
The RTI Route: A Long Paper Trail
To pursue this matter further, the complainant approached the State Information Commission, Uttar Pradesh, under Appeal No. S-01/A/0061/2024 (Registration No. A-20240100130), filed against the Public Information Officer, Cyber Crime/Operations, Mirzapur.
Then, at the hearing scheduled for 6 July 2026, the complainant submitted a Supplementary Representation detailing:
- The true scale of the fraud (over Rs. 54 Crore, not Rs. 16 Crore)
- The police’s failure to record ongoing document submissions in their progress reports
- The refusal to issue an acknowledgment for physical document delivery
- The lack of field action against the identified Bengaluru-based suspect
Overall, the case diary reviewed as part of these proceedings runs to 55 separate dated entries between November 2023 and June 2026. Across these entries, in fact, the record shows a long, repetitive cycle of bank inquiries (most returning “no account opened” responses), stalled Income Tax Department data requests, and multiple changes in the investigating officer — first Rakesh Kumar Singh, then Arvind Kumar Yadav, then Jitendra Kumar, and now, currently, Dhananjay Kumar Rai.
Taking It to the Centre: A CBI Investigation Is Demanded via CPGRAMS
Since the state-level investigation had stalled, the complainant subsequently escalated the matter directly to the Central Government. In doing so, he formally demanded a CBI investigation into this PAN identity theft case by filing a grievance with the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), Administrative Vigilance Division-II (AVD-II), through the CPGRAMS portal:
- CPGRAMS Registration Number:
DOPAT/E/2026/0009037 - Date of Receipt: 05/07/2026
- Subject: Request for CBI investigation into Case Crime No. 291/2023
- Prayer: CBI investigation demanded in this PAN identity theft case, citing the inter-departmental deadlock between the Income Tax Department and local police over Section 138 (Income-tax Act) data requests, and the unaddressed Rs. 54.70 Crore fraud scale
What Happened Next
Instead of examining the grievance itself, however, the Central Government forwarded it to the Chief Minister Secretariat, Government of Uttar Pradesh, which then, in turn, routed it down to the Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur. Subsequently, the SP closed the grievance on 19 August 2026 via letter No. AIGRAS-08/2026, without recording any reasoned decision on the CBI-transfer request itself.
- Disposing Officer: Shri Bhaskar Chandra Kandpal (Joint Secretary), Chief Minister Secretariat
- Contact Address: Room No. 321, U.P. Secretariat, Lucknow
- Enquiry Conducted By: Mo. Faheem, Circle Officer (Operations), Mirzapur — Mobile: 9454401594
Consequently, the complainant rated this disposal unsatisfactory, formally flagging that a request addressed to the Central Government had, in effect, ended up closed by a state district authority with no jurisdiction to decide a CBI-transfer request in the first place.
The Jurisdictional Question Behind Why a CBI Investigation Is Demanded, Not Ordered, at District Level
Under Indian administrative and constitutional practice, only two authorities can, in fact, examine a request to transfer investigation of a state-registered criminal case to the CBI:
- First, the State Government, through its Home/Vigilance Department, via consent under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946; or
- Second, the jurisdictional High Court — in this case, the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad — exercising its constitutional writ jurisdiction.
In other words, a District Superintendent of Police holds no jurisdiction to decide, recommend, or dispose of such a request. Yet, quite clearly, that is precisely what happened here, and therefore it raises a legitimate question about whether the grievance received proper consideration at all.
The Latest Move: An RTI to the Chief Minister Office
To get to the bottom of this, accordingly, the complainant has now filed a fresh RTI application, this time directly with the Chief Minister Office, Government of Uttar Pradesh. Through this application, he seeks the file notings, the rule or SOP relied upon, and the identity of the officer who ordered the grievance closed at the district level.
- RTI Registration Number:
DOCMO/R/2026/60959 - Online Reference Number:
CPAHDRPPH6 - Date of Filing: 20/08/2026
- RTI Fee Paid: Rs. 10
- Filed With: Chief Minister Office, Uttar Pradesh
- Public Information Officer: Manish Kumar Singh (Section Officer) — Phone: 9554417327, Email: manish.21320@gov.in
- Nodal Officer: Phone: 9454410972, Email: sanjay.10972@gov.in
- Portal: rtionline.up.gov.in
Under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, moreover, the authority must respond within 30 days of filing, which places the statutory deadline around 19 September 2026.
Why This Case Matters Beyond One Complainant
Overall, this case is not simply a dispute over paperwork. Rather, it touches on questions that matter to any citizen who has ever been a victim of identity-based financial fraud:
- First, what happens when the scale of a fraud a victim reports (Rs. 54.70 Crore) is many times larger than what local police have formally investigated (Rs. 16 Crore)?
- Second, what recourse does a citizen have when two government departments — Income Tax and local police — cannot agree on how to share the data needed to trace the money?
- Third, and perhaps most importantly, what happens when a grievance addressed to the Central Government gets quietly redirected to, and disposed of by, the very state machinery whose inaction prompted the complaint in the first place?
Through this ongoing correspondence — via CPGRAMS, the State Information Commission, and now the RTI Act — the complainant is, in effect, trying to force these questions onto the record, in front of an authority that actually holds the jurisdiction to answer them.
FAQ: CBI Investigation Demanded in PAN Identity Theft
Why is a CBI investigation being demanded in this PAN identity theft case? Because, for nearly three years, the local police investigation has addressed only a fraction (Rs. 16.12 Crore) of a fraud that official Income Tax Department records put at over Rs. 54.70 Crore. In addition, a jurisdictional deadlock between the Income Tax Department and the state police has left the case at a standstill.
Who has jurisdiction to approve a CBI investigation in a state-registered case? Only the State Government (through its Home/Vigilance Department, under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946) or the jurisdictional High Court — in this instance, the Allahabad High Court — can examine and act on a request for CBI investigation. By contrast, a District Superintendent of Police cannot.
What is the current status of the demand for a CBI investigation in this PAN identity theft case? So far, officials have closed the CPGRAMS grievance (DOPAT/E/2026/0009037) at the district level without recording a reasoned decision on the CBI-transfer prayer. As a result, the complainant has now filed a follow-up RTI application (DOCMO/R/2026/60959) with the Chief Minister Office to seek the basis for that closure.
Key Reference Details
For quick reference, here are the key case numbers, contacts, and links mentioned throughout this post:
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Case Crime No. | 291/2023, u/s 420 IPC, 66C, 66D IT Act |
| Police Station | Kotwali Katra, Mirzapur |
| PAN under investigation | GSWPS0850Q |
| SIC Appeal No. | S-01/A/0061/2024 (Reg. No. A-20240100130) |
| CPGRAMS Grievance No. | DOPAT/E/2026/0009037 |
| Grievance filed with | DoPT, AVD-II (Central Government) |
| Grievance closed by | SP Mirzapur, via letter No. AIGRAS-08/2026, dated 19/08/2026 |
| Fresh RTI Registration No. | DOCMO/R/2026/60959 |
| RTI Online Reference No. | CPAHDRPPH6 |
| RTI Portal | rtionline.up.gov.in |
| Complainant Contact | Mobile 7379105911, Email yogimpsingh@gmail.com |
This account draws on official correspondence, portal-generated grievance records, and RTI filings in the complainant’s possession. Overall, the matter remains under investigation, and disposal is ongoing across multiple forums.
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.