Cyber Fraud Investigations Need Real-Time Coordination Between Police, Banks & Telecom Authorities: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Every second is of significance in cyber fraud cases, Court said.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has observed that investigating cybercrime requires a significantly faster and more coordinated approach, as every second is of significance.
Emphasizing the need to streamline the existing investigative framework, the bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi permitted the impleadment of the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Department of Telecommunications, and the Reserve Bank of India.
The bench highlighted,
"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 framework, the object of prompt detection and recovery is likely to be defeated".
The issue arose when a woman approached the High Court seeking the issuance of directions against the State to investigate her FIR expeditiously and effectively. She had lodged a complaint claiming that ₹6.24 Lakhs were siphoned off from her account through an unauthorised IMPS transaction.
The petitioner was a retired manager of PNB, and on April 27, 2024, while attempting to access her mobile application, she discovered that her account was locked due t multiple login attempts.
Upon verification, she found two unauthorised transactions executed from her savings account. She immediately blocked her internet and mobile banking facilities and submitted a written complaint to the Branch Manager. She also submitted representations to higher authorities, including the Zonal Office and the Circle Office. She also lodged a complaint to the National Cyber Crime Cell, which led to the registration of the FIR.
She was aggrieved as, despite registration of FIR, no final police report was filed before the competent magistrate. She claimed that such a delay is contrary to the statutory mandate under Section 193 BNSS, which governs the timeline and protocols for concluding the investigation and filing the police report/chargesheet.
The counsel for the complainant argued that even if the accused persons are located outside the State, the authorities have a legal obligation to coordinate with the concerned police and adopt all lawful measures for securing the presence of the accused men.
The counsel for the State argued that the investigating agency was trying its best to trace and apprehend the accused persons. The counsel submitted that the investigation was actively in progress and various technical and procedural steps were taken.
Emphasizing the 'alarming rise' in incidents of cyber fraud, the bench highlighted that retired persons, senior persons or pensioners are the worst sufferers of such frauds, who have accumulated savings over several decades.
The bench noted that the manner of investigating in the present case "does not inspire confidence" and therefore directed the Jabalpur Superintendent of Police to appear personally to ensure proper supervision of the investigation.
On the next hearing, the court interacted with the Jabalpur SP over the progress of the investigation and the difficulties being faced in tracing the perpetrators of the cyber fraud in question.
The investigating officer informed the court that immediately upon receipt of the complaint, the matter is forwarded to the Cyber Cell for initiating necessary action. Thereafter, Cyber Cell is required to obtain information from the respective nodal agencies of different banks. Since each bank has its designated nodal agency, considerable time is consumed in procuring information. He stated that three to five days are consumed merely in receiving preliminary responses from such nodal agencies.
The SP also submitted that in cases where assistance is required from other states, the agencies are not always forthcoming in sharing information.
The SP further informed the court that cyberfraudsters are operating through null ank accounts opened in the name of an innocent person through encrypted communication platforms such as Telegram for coordinating activities. Therefore, to identify the actual perpetrator, the IP logs, subscriber details and other technical information have to be collected, which again takes considerable time. Further, these fraudsters constantly change their locations, dissipate the proceeds of crime and erase the electronic trail, thereby frustrating the investigation
Emphasizing that "Cyber fraud is a crime where every second is of significance", the bench noted that prompt action is required by all agencies involved in the collection of information. The bench held that a delay in any stage would directly benefit the offender, "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".
The court also noted that the existing mechanism, wherein information is sought through multiple agencies and forwarded from one to another before any effective field action is taken, results in unavoidable delay.
Therefore, the court prima facie opined that there is an urgency to streamline and coordinate the mechanism in such a way that immediate actions be taken for tracing the offenders and preserving electronic evidence. The court thus allowed the prayer to implead the Union of India through the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Union of India through the Department of Telecommunications, and the Reserve Bank of India
Therefore, the court allowed the petitioner's prayer to implead (i) the Director General of Police, West Bengal; (ii) the Director General of Police, Jharkhand; and (iii) the Director General of Police, Assam in the present case.
The bench directed:
"Considering the nature of issues involved and the necessity of ensuring effective inter-State coordination in the investigation, the Director General of Police, West Bengal, the Director General of Police, Jharkhand and the Director General of Police, Assam shall remain personally present before this Court on the next date of hearing, along with complete status reports indicating the action taken by their respective departments in relation to the investigation. The newly impleaded respondents as well as the existing respondents may file their respective replies, if they so desire, before the next date of hearing".
The matter was listed for July 21, 2026.
Case Title: Chaitali Mittra v Superintendent of Police (WP-29570-2025)
For Petitioner: Advocate Kabeer Paul
For State: Additional Advocate General Swapnil Dubey with Government Advocates Priyanka Mishra and Vijendra Singh