Shri Sampat Upadhyay, Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur along with Shri Bhoopendra Armo, T.I. and Shri Sanjeev Kumar Tripathi - I.O. are present before the Court today.

In compliance with the order dated 29.06.2026, the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur, along with the Station House Officer, Police Station Gorabazar, and the Investigating Officer, has remained personally present before this Court.

This Court interacted with the Superintendent of Police at length regarding the progress of the investigation and the difficulties being faced in tracing the perpetrators of the cyber fraud in question. The Superintendent of Police submitted that immediately upon receipt of the complaint from the complainant, the matter was forwarded to the Cyber Cell for initiating necessary action. It has been explained that, in cases involving cyber fraud, the Cyber Cell is required to obtain information from the respective nodal agencies of different banks. Since every bank has its own designated nodal agency situated at different locations, considerable time is consumed in procuring the requisite information. According to the Superintendent of Police, ordinarily three to five days are consumed merely in receiving preliminary responses from such nodal agencies.

The Superintendent of Police has further submitted that in several cases, the investigation also requires assistance from police authorities of other States where the suspected transactions or accused persons are located. Though not expressly stated, it is apparent from the submissions made that timely cooperation from police authorities of other States is not always forthcoming, thereby causing further delay in the investigation.

It has also been informed that cyber fraudsters are increasingly operating through so-called "mule" or "null" bank accounts opened in the names of innocent persons and are using encrypted communication platforms such as Telegram for coordinating their activities. For identifying the actual perpetrators, the investigating agency is required to approach the concerned intermediary for obtaining IP logs, subscriber details and other technical information, which again consumes considerable time. Consequently, by the time the necessary information is received from different stakeholders, the accused persons are often able to change their locations, dissipate the proceeds of crime and erase the electronic trail, thereby frustrating the investigation.

Upon consideration of the submissions made and the material placed before this Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that investigation of cyber fraud offences stands on an altogether different footing from conventional criminal investigations. Cyber fraud is a crime where every second is of significance. Prompt reporting by the victim, immediate freezing of accounts by banks, real-time sharing of information by financial institutions, expeditious response by telecom service providers and social media/intermediary platforms, prompt action by investigating agencies and seamless coordination amongst police authorities of different States are all indispensable for an effective investigation. Delay at any stage of the process directly benefits the offenders, who exploit the technological advantages available to them for concealing their identity and siphoning the proceeds of crime beyond the reach of law enforcement agencies.

This Court further finds that the existing mechanism, whereby information is sought through multiple agencies and forwarded from one authority to another before any effective field action is undertaken, results in avoidable delay. Such procedural movement of files and requests enables the perpetrators to remain several steps ahead of the investigating agencies. In cyber crimes, the investigating machinery must necessarily move faster than the offenders. Unless information gathering, technical analysis and field investigation are integrated under a dedicated and coordinated investigative framewor