Introduction Police Inaction & Consumer Protection

Explore the critical issues of Police Inaction & Consumer Protection in online scams and the struggle for justice in today’s digital landscape. Moreover, with the rapid growth of e-commerce and online transactions, many individuals have unfortunately fallen victim to deceitful schemes that exploit their trust and naivety. In this context, the Mirzapur police have labelled such incidents as Cyber Fraud consumer disputes, thus highlighting a significant gap in law enforcement’s response to these crimes. As victims seek help, they often encounter bureaucratic hurdles and, as a result, a lack of efficient investigation, which leads to feelings of abandonment and frustration. Ultimately, the pressing need for reform in policing strategies, alongside enhanced consumer education and stronger legal frameworks, is crucial to effectively combat these scams and provide victims with the justice they rightfully deserve.

Between Police Inaction & Consumer Protection: The Problem of Cyber Fraud

Today, many people face online scams and fake advertisements, bringing issues of Police Inaction & Consumer Protection to the forefront. Consequently, when victims ask the police for help, they naturally expect quick action. However, slow processes and hidden records often make it very hard for citizens to get justice.

Furthermore, Second Appeal No. A-20260601938 before the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission shows this issue clearly. In fact, the case started over a loss of ₹679, illustrating the broader struggle surrounding Police Inaction & Consumer Protection. Ultimately, it highlights how police refused to investigate a clear cyber crime, told the victim to go to Consumer Court, and then refused to share the seller details needed for that complaint.

1. Background of the Dispute: Police Inaction & Consumer Rights

To begin with, the issue started with a Facebook advertisement. Specifically, the buyer ordered a sugar monitor from a website named CAREBUDDYO.MYSHOPIFY.COM, advertised by Toytingle.

• First, the package arrived through courier service Xpressbees, with the seller named as “Velocity Drop”.
• Next, the delivery agent took ₹680 in cash on delivery for a bill of ₹679.
• Finally, when opened, the box contained cheap hair-dye shampoo instead of the health monitor.

As a result, because sending wrong goods under a false name showed deliberate fraud, the buyer immediately filed complaints with digital receipts on central (CPGRAMS) and state (IGRS) portals.

2.Police Inaction & Consumer Protection: Calling Crime a Consumer Dispute

However, when local police reported on the grievance (IGRS No. 60000260000007), they avoided action. Specifically, instead of investigating the fraud and tracing the money, police marked it as a standard consumer complaint, demonstrating a clear case of Police Inaction & Consumer Protection gaps.

Key Findings Recorded in the Police Inquiry Report:

• Field Visit: Sub-Inspector Chandrabhan Singh visited the buyer’s home and prepared a report on 21–22 January 2026.
• Refusal to Investigate: The officer told the buyer to call seller customer care or go to Consumer Court. The officer wrote that “no police action is needed” and listed fault as “Nil”.
• Senior Approval: Senior police officers in Mirzapur approved this report and closed the case.

Thus, by closing the case, police essentially dropped their duty to probe cheating. Consequently, they told the citizen to fight a civil court case instead.

3. The Citizen’s Trap

As a result, this police response created a huge trap for the citizen, perfectly exemplifying the conflict between Police Inaction & Consumer Protection:

1. Police Conclusion: To begin with, police closed the case and advised going to Consumer Court.
2. Consumer Law Requirement: However, consumer laws require the seller’s real name and physical address to send court notices.
3. RTI Request: Therefore, to get these details, the citizen filed an RTI asking for seller ID, courier KYC, and bank details.
4. RTI Denial: In response, the RTI officer refused, saying records were missing or private under Section 8(1)(j).

Result: Consequently, the citizen cannot get help from police or Consumer Court.

In addition, under the Consumer Protection Act 2019, every complaint needs the verified name and office address of the seller. Consumer courts cannot send notices to a fake Facebook page or website name.

Specifically, when the citizen used the RTI Act to request these details, the RTI officer denied the request. Therefore, police told the citizen to go to court, but withheld the information needed to do so.

4. Violations under the RTI Act, 2005

Specifically, the RTI application filed with the SP Office in Mirzapur asked six key questions as follows:

5. First, the full name and registered address of the seller (Velocity Drop or Shiva Agrawal).
6. Second, the KYC details used by the merchant on the courier platform for order 11967201.
7. Third, the bank account details where the ₹679 payment was sent.
8. Fourth, a full copy of the inquiry report and written reply from the courier company.
9. Fifth, the name and rank of the officer who led the inquiry.
10. Finally, the name and rank of the senior authority who approved the final report.

Violation of RTI Sections 6(3) and 5(4): Police Inaction and Oversight

For instance, Section 6(3) of the RTI Act states that if another office holds the records, the RTI officer must transfer the request within five days.

In reality, the SP Office controls the District Cyber Crime Cell, which has the tools to obtain merchant KYC and bank details from courier companies and banks. Instead of sending the request to the Cyber Cell, however, the RTI officer sent it to local police, who consequently said they could not get such data.

Unlawful Reliance on Section 8(1)(j) & Failure of Consumer Protection

In response, the RTI officer refused bank details by calling them personal data under Section 8(1)(j). However, this argument is weak because a business bank account used to collect online payments is not personal private data. Indeed, Section 8(1)(j) protects personal privacy, not commercial accounts used in online scams.

5. Police Inaction & False Statements in Official Replies

Furthermore, the police replies contain clear contradictions that directly violate RTI rules, further demonstrating the broader pattern of Police Inaction & Consumer Protection failures:

• Initial Denial (31 March 2026): The RTI officer wrote that “no officer was appointed and no inquiry was done,” claiming no report existed.
• Actual Record: Official files and IGRS records show the opposite:
  1. Sub-Inspector Chandrabhan Singh checked the site on 21–22 January 2026 and took photos.
  2. Subsequently, Circle Officer Vivek Jawla reviewed and signed the findings on 30 January 2026.
  3. Following that, the Additional SP (City), Mirzapur, completed the official report under letter ST-AOPUOAONagar-IGRS/2026 on 31 January 2026.
  4. Ultimately, the SSP Mirzapur sent this report to the Chief Minister’s Office on 31 January 2026 via Letter No. IGRS-01/2026.

Therefore, claiming that no inquiry occurred when a senior officer signed a report was a clear attempt to hide records. As a consequence, this undermined the credibility of official responses.

6. Proceedings Before the State Information Commission on Consumer Protection

Subsequently, the appellant filed a formal reply with Court Room S-5 of the UP Information Commission under Diary Number D-041020260069.

Specifically, the main requests to the Commission ask for full action regarding Police Inaction & Consumer Protection:

1. Order Details Release: Firstly, an order forcing police to provide the seller’s real name, address, courier KYC, and bank details for Consumer Court.
2. Courier Reply: Second, an order to share the courier company’s written reply.
3. Fines (Section 20(1)): Third, a maximum fine of ₹25,000 on the RTI officer for giving false statements and hiding facts.
4. Departmental Action (Section 20(2)): Finally, a demand for disciplinary action against officers who hid records.

In conclusion, real openness requires public offices to protect citizens instead of hiding behind delays. When police fail to probe cyber crimes and block RTI requests, scammers operate freely. Thus, the upcoming ruling from the UP Information Commission will show if oversight can address Police Inaction & Consumer Protection issues to restore public trust.

In addition, here are the application IDs, email addresses, phone numbers, and web links for the offices involved in your case, taken directly from official records:

1. Second Appeal / Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC)

• Second Appeal Registration Number: A-20260601938
• Commission File Number: S05/A/0957/2026
• UPIC Diary Number: D-041020260069 (Dated 04/10/2026)
• Commission Hearing Room / Bench: S-5
• Bench S-5 Hearing Email: hearingcourts5.upic@up.gov.in
  
• Official Web Portal: Uttar Pradesh Information Commission

2. Office of the Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur (RTI & Grievances)

• RTI Section 6(1) Application Number: SPMZR/R/2026/60066
• RTI Section 6(1) Transaction ID: SPMZRR20260000000081
• RTI First Appeal Registration Number: SPMZR/A/2026/60024
• First Appellate Authority (FAA): Aparna Rajat Kausik, Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur
  • Email: spmzr-up@nic.in
  • Mobile: +91-9473567333
• CPIO / ASP Operation: Sri Omprakash Singh
  • Email: asp-op.mi@up.gov.in
  • Mobile: +91-9454401105
• Additional Superintendent of Police (City) / Inquiry Officer:
  • Email: asp-city.mi@up.gov.in
• RTI Cell Mirzapur:
  • Email: jansuchanacellmzr@gmail.com
• Investigating Sub-Inspector (Kotwali Katra): SI Chandrabhan Singh
  • Mobile: +91-6306886947
• Official RTI Web Portal (UP): RTI Online Uttar Pradesh

3. State & Central Grievance Redressal Authorities

• State IGRS Reference Number: 60000260000007
  • Competent Officer (CM Secretariat / Lok Shikayat Anubhag-4): Shri Arvind Mohan (Joint Secretary)
  • Email: arvind.12574@gov.in
  • Contact Number: 0522-2226350
  • Web Link: UP Jansunwai / IGRS Portal
• Central CPGRAMS Grievance Numbers:
  • Original Grievance: MINHA/E/2025/0018101
  • Grievance Appeal: MINHA/E/2025/0030992
  • Concerned Officer: DS Coord (DS coord), Ministry of Home Affairs, Media Wing, NDCC-II Building, New Delhi
  • Email: dircoord-mha@nic.in
  • Telephone Number: 011-23438002
  • Web Link: Central PG Portal (CPGRAMS)

4. Consumer Dispute Redressal Commissions (For Redressal / Complaint Filing)

• National Consumer Helpline (NCH):
  • Toll-Free Helpline: 1915 or 1800-11-4000
  • Web Portal: National Consumer Helpline
• e-Daakhil Portal (Online Consumer Commission Filing):
  • Purpose: Digital registration and filing of formal consumer complaints before District, State, and National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commissions
  • Jurisdiction Forum: District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), Mirzapur
  • Filing Portal Link: e-Daakhil Consumer Court Portal

Related Posts like Police Inaction & Consumer Protection

• RTI Appeal Against Police Inaction in Mirzapur
• Struggle to Protect India’s RTI Applicants’ Safety
• India’s National Consumer Helpline Security Issues
• National Consumer Helpline: Addressing Your Grievances
• Court Order Non-Compliance by Lekhpal Exposed