Author: Atiya Kamal, South Calcutta Law College
To the point
As our society is constantly changing with the times, there are various kinds of crimes that are also growing through it. We have been living in that age where multiple kinds of crimes are being done through technology and machines. The presence of tech and machines is playing a vital role in our busy daily lives as they have become a huge support to mankind. They have really made many of our daily life processes easy, whether it is sending an amount through online forms or online shopping; the examples are vast.
The advent of technology also brings certain challenges, as cyber frauds are increasing day by day in the form of phishing, hacking, cyber stalking, digital evidence etc. Even the police are not looking up these cases appropriately.
This article will elaborate on the police’s inactions in dealing with cyber fraud cases, particularly those involving finance matters, and will provide potential remedies to solve these problems.
Abstract
Cyber fraud has become a significant issue that is rapidly escalating not just in India, but globally. Given that this crime is relatively new, addressing the associated challenges is complex; for example, the current laws and regulations are inadequate to resolve all related cases. Therefore, it is crucial to confront this problem, as it can have a devastating effect on people’s lives, especially since many individuals rely on technology to simplify their daily activities. While technology facilitates ease of living, it simultaneously introduces difficulties in the form of various scams. It is the responsibility of law enforcement and relevant authorities to handle this situation with care; however, it has been observed that the police often do not respond appropriately to these issues. In this article, we will explore the rise of cyber fraud and identify the gaps in the system that contribute to insufficient police investigations into cyber complaints.
Legal Jargon
The sui generis (unique) nature of cybercrimes under Sections 66-66D of the IT Act, 2000 exposes lacunae in India’s investigative paradigm. Despite Section 154 CrPC’s mandate for FIR registration, police routinely invoke Section 177’s jurisdictional constraints, creating forum shopping dilemmas. The RBI’s 2021 Digital Payment Security Controls remain pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept) in theory but suffer non-implemented in practice. Section 65B IEA’s stringent electronic evidence standards render most complaints non est factum (not my deed), while banks exploit force majeure clauses to avoid Section 43A IT Act liabilities. The Adjudicating Officer mechanism (Section 46 IT Act) operates in rem (against property) rather than in personam (against person), causing lis pendens that violate Article 21’s right to speedy justice. Qui facit per alium facit per se liability must extend to payment gateways under PCI-DSS standards to combat uberrimae fidei (utmost good faith) breaches in fintech ecosystems.
The proof
At times, we receive certain types of messages and calls requesting our bank account number to supposedly double our investment. Subsequently, the bank account becomes empty, and the money is taken away. If an individual attempts to contact the person who made the request, they will find that the phone is no longer answered. This represents one form of cyber fraud, among various others, that is detrimental to society. In this context, there are laws under the Information Technology Act of 2000, the DPDP Act of 2023, and the IPC of 1860, which has now been amended to the BNS of 2023, that assist us in addressing cyber fraud. However, it is also evident that numerous cyber complaints are not being adequately addressed by the police. Reports from various news articles and high court cases indicate a significant lack of police action concerning cyber fraud cases. The government has established cyber police stations along with the Cyber Crime Wing (CCW) to tackle these issues. Following this initiative, it has been observed that complaints are being registered with the NCCRP, and in some instances, the police merely freeze the bank accounts of all individuals involved in a money trail. The next step should be for the police to release the bank accounts of those who are not implicated in the crime. However, after this process, the police often cease further investigation, which adversely affects the daily lives of innocent individuals. In the worst-case scenario, some police officers have been found to be the fake complainants in several cases.
Case Laws
Mrs. B. Kavitha vs. The Inspector Of Police on 11 June, 2019.
It is an unfortunate case where the 1st respondent has completely misused his power. Freezing of bank account has to be undertaken only in rare cases and that to in strict compliance with the mandatory procedure under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. Time and again this Court has held that if a bank account is freezed without notice to the accused persons and without submitting a report before the Magistrate immediately, the same amounts to violation of the mandatory procedure prescribed u/s 102 of Cr.P.C.
The action of the 1st respondent tantamount to the infringement with the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The court lastly states “This Court has no hesitation to direct defreezing of the bank accounts. However, before doing so, this Court deems it fit to impose cost on the 1st respondent for his illegal action and in order to ensure that this mistake is not committed by any of the Investigating Officers in future”.
Yogesh Agarwal vs. State of Karnataka (24 September 2020) (AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 1896)
The Karnataka High Court addressed police inaction in a cyber fraud case where the petitioner’s complaint was ignored despite evidence. The court held that police must register an FIR under Section 154 CrPC if a cognizable offense is disclosed (Lalita Kumari v. UP). It directed the Cyber Crime Police to investigate promptly, emphasizing the duty to act on digital crimes. The ruling reinforced that inaction violates victims’ rights under the IT Act and Constitution.
Sheeba C E vs National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal, on 16 August, 2024
The petitioner, Sheeba C E, challenged the freezing of her bank account, which was executed by the bank upon instructions from the police. The police action was based on a complaint lodged through the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal, alleging online financial fraud.
The central legal provision in question was Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which empowers police officers to seize property suspected to be involved in a crime. Specifically, Section 102(3) mandates that any such seizure must be reported “forthwith” to the jurisdictional Magistrate.
The court noted that while delays in reporting seizures to the Magistrate might be considered procedural irregularities, a complete failure to report undermines the legality of the seizure. Emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural requirements, the court highlighted that non-compliance with Section 102(3) could adversely affect the validity of the seizure.
Conclusion
At last, the rise of cyber fraud demands a robust and accountable legal response. However, police inaction, procedural lapses, and misuse of power—such as unlawful freezing of bank accounts—often deprive victims of timely justice and infringe upon their fundamental rights especially Article 21. Courts have repeatedly emphasized the need for strict compliance with legal procedures, especially under Section 102 Cr.Pc. To combat cybercrime effectively, it is imperative that law enforcement agencies act diligently, respect due process, and uphold the principles of justice and transparency.
FAQS
Q. what are cyber frauds ?
Ans Cyber fraud refers to illegal activities conducted through digital means—such as the internet, computers, or mobile devices—to deceive, manipulate, or steal from individuals or organizations for financial gain or malicious intent. These crimes exploit technology to breach trust, often targeting sensitive data, money, or personal information.
For eg:- Hacking, Phishing, cyber stalking, etc.
Q. why it is relevant to address cyber fraud cases ?
Ans Tackling cyber fraud is crucial for safeguarding financial security, preserving constitutional rights, ensuring the safety of both national and digital economies, and maintaining public confidence in technology. Swift legal measures serve to deter offenders, bolster the rule of law, and enhance India’s dedication to justice in a world that is becoming more digital and interconnected.
Q. why police are not doing proper investigation on cyber fraud cases ?
Ans Law enforcement agencies frequently do not perform adequate investigations in cyber fraud incidents because of a deficiency in technical knowledge, limited training, and insufficient digital resources. Numerous officers lack familiarity with the constantly changing cyber regulations and intricate financial pathways. Moreover, overwhelmed police departments tend to focus on conventional crimes, resulting in cyber-related complaints being neglected. Confusion regarding jurisdiction and delays in acquiring digital evidence also obstruct advancement. In certain cases, indifference or corruption results in a lack of action, ultimately denying justice to victims and eroding public confidence in the judicial system.
Q. Remedies to deal with the investigation of cyber fraud cases by police authorities ?
Ans To enhance police investigations in cyber fraud cases, it is imperative to establish specialized cyber crime units staffed with trained personnel and equipped with advanced digital tools. Mandatory training in cyber laws and digital forensics is crucial. Clear jurisdictional guidelines and inter-agency coordination must be implemented. The prompt registration of FIRs and strict compliance with legal procedures, such as Section 102 CrPC, should be guaranteed. Regular audits and accountability mechanisms should be instituted to monitor police conduct. Additionally, public awareness campaigns can promote reporting and cooperation, thereby improving the overall efficiency of cybercrime investigations.
