Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 20186
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Mr.Justice B.PUGALENDHI
Megala Boominathan – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner of Police – Respondent
Police are duty-bound to register and investigate cybercrime complaints without imposing arbitrary monetary thresholds, highlighting the need for accountability.
Headnote:
Fraud - Cyber Crime - Section 66(D) IT Amendment Act, 2008; Section 420 IPC - The court emphasized the necessity of timely and efficient police action on cybercrime complaints, ensuring investigations are conducted without undue delay, as per the legal provisions outlined.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a victim of bank fraud, reported a fraudulent transaction involving her savings. Despite initial police inaction, the court intervened to ensure proper investigation into the complaint by the cybercrime unit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's complaint was delayed and inadequately addressed by police. It determined that the police must actively investigate complaints, irrespective of the fraud amount, urging proper conduct.
Issues: Whether the police can refuse to register a case based solely on the amount involved in the fraud and the adequacy of police response to cybercrime complaints.
Ratio Decidendi: Consumer protection and public duty of police necessitate that complaints of cyber fraud should not be dismissed based on monetary thresholds, ensuring access to justice for all victims.
Final Decision: The writ petition is allowed, directing the police to conduct a thorough investigation and file a report within a reasonable time.
O R D E R
The petitioner is a victim of a Bank fraud. She was having Savings and Fixed Deposit Accounts in the HDFC Bank and she is also maintaining a credit card. Through her credit card, she has remitted a sum of Rs.2,698/- for recharging her mother-in-law's Jio Mobile No.98437 21992, on 14.01.2024. However, the recharge was not effected. Therefore, she has approached the Jio Customer Care and they asked to WhatsApp the bank details, including the Credit/Debit card details. The petitioner has also responded to the same through her whatsapp number. She has received several OTPs. Since the petitioner is having some doubts, has approached her neighbour and on his instruction, they have also contacted the employee of the HDFC Bank. The staff of the HDFC Bank has suggested the petitioner to transfer all the amount to the fixed Deposit account and on his advice, it was done. On the next day, ie. on 25.01.2024, the entire amount in her account Rs.2,33,642/- has been withdrawn. In this regard, the petitioner has lodged a complaint before the respondent police and the same was forwarded to the second respondent police. A receipt was also issued to her. However, no action was taken by the respondent police. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking a Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct the enquiry and to take action on her complaint, dated 25.01.2024 and a reminder, dated
03.05.2024.
2.When this writ petition is taken up for hearing on
18.07.2024, a representation was made on behalf of the respondents that the amount involved in this case is only around Rs.2 Lakhs and a case would be registered only if the value of fraud is more than Rs.5 Lakhs and for the remaining complaints, preliminary enquiry would be conducted.
3.Surprised to this representation made on behalf of the respondents, this Court, has suo motu impleaded the Additional Director General of Police, Cyber Crime, Madurai and directed the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to get instructions as to the stand taken by them, in registering the cases.
4.In response to the order, dated 18.07.2024, they have issued a notice under Section 91 and 102 of Cr.P.C to the HDFC Bank through e-mail, seeking details on this fraudulent transaction, KYC details and Statement of accounts, mobile number and mail ID. Since the details have not been provided, they have not registered the case. The Superintendent of Police claims that the case is now been registered on the file of City Cyber Crime in Crime No.57 of 2024, under Section 66(D) of IT Amendment Act, 2008 and under Section 420 of IPC as against some unknown persons, having link with the mobile numbers used for commission of offence i.e., 9241633677 and 8217305319. The Superintendent of Police has also stated that no oral or written order was passed to register a case for a fraud of more than Rs.5 Lakhs alone. They are registering all the cyber crime complaints in National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (NCRP), before assigning FIR or CSR to the complaint. He also states that they have registered 95,106 cyber complaints in the year 2023. 3602 FIRs have been registered all over State of Tamil Nadu by the Cyber Crime Police Stations, out of which, around 1147 FIRs have been registered for the loss, which is more than Rs.5 Lakhs and 2155 FIRs have been registered for the money loss, which is less than Rs.5 Lakhs. They have also registered FIRs for non-financial complaints. It is also stated that the State of Tamil Nadu stands in third position in FIR registration and first in CSR Registration all over India, corresponding to Cyber crime cases, as per the report of the Cyber Co-ordination Centre. According to the Superintendent of Police, earlier instruction provided to this Court is mistake of fact/communication and they are registering cases even for non-financial frauds.
5.This Court considered the rival submissions made and also perused the materials placed on record.
6.The petitioner, a victim of a cy
