The Bombay High Court has expressed serious concerns over the Mumbai police’s delays in a digital fraud case involving a senior citizen, underscoring the urgent need for actions to safeguard victims’ financial interests. Emphasizing the critical nature of timely interventions to halt the distribution of stolen funds, the bench noted, “Securing money at the right time is paramount for the victims.” The court criticized the police’s inaction, stating, “What was the police doing? All the money is gone. If they had acted swiftly, the accused could have been apprehended while the scam was still occurring.”
This case arose from a petition filed by a 70-year-old retired teacher who lost Rs 32 lakh to a digital scam. It was revealed that the police initially refused to register the complaint, citing focus on “larger scams” as a reason for neglect.
According to the petitioner’s advocate, immediate police action could have halted further transactions and led to swift arrests. The case was ultimately transferred to the cybercrime cell, resulting in two arrests, but the stolen funds remain unrecovered as they had been funneled through multiple accounts.
Public prosecutor Hiten Venegaonkar highlighted that local police often lack the necessary expertise to tackle specialized cybercrime cases. He reassured the court that measures would be implemented to ensure that all police stations register zero FIRs in cyber fraud cases, allowing for quicker forwarding to the cybercrime unit.
The bench condemned the delay of over a month in addressing the case and stressed the necessity for clear guidelines for dealing with digital fraud complaints. Justice Dere emphasized that these cases not only affect senior citizens but resonate across the wider community, stating, “Every day, vulnerable individuals, including senior citizens, fall victim to such scams. We will treat this as a test case and pursue it to its rightful conclusion.”
The court directed severe measures against the police officers responsible for the delay, deeming their negligence unacceptable. “Does a common man have to resort to court every time? This petitioner had the resources to come to the high court. But what happens to countless others who face obstacles in seeking justice?” questioned the bench. They underlined the police’s obligation to provide immediate assistance to victims.
The court has permitted the petitioner to include the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and three banks involved in the transfer of the stolen money as respondents in the case.
The next hearing is scheduled for April 22.
