Bombay High Court Raps Mumbai Police For Delaying Action In 'Digital Arrest' Case Of 71-Year-Old Woman

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court expressed dissatisfaction with Mumbai Police regarding their delayed response to a complaint from a 71-year-old retired Mathematics teacher, Leela Parthasarathy, who fell victim to a digital fraud scheme that cost her Rs. 32 lakhs. The Court noted that the First Information Report (FIR) was registered only after a month and 21 days, failing to provide a valid reason for this delay. Consequently, the Court directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police to investigate the officer responsible for the inaction.

The Court emphasized the need for prompt action to freeze funds before they could be transferred by fraudsters, particularly when vulnerable citizens are involved. It instructed the police to disseminate guidelines to the public regarding the process to register a 'Zero FIR' at local police stations to address fraud-related complaints effectively.

During the proceedings, Advocate Nikhil Daga, representing Parthasarathy, detailed how she was subjected to 'digital arrest' for two weeks and deceived into believing that fraudsters were genuine Enforcement Directorate officers, as they presented her with forged identification documents. She transferred various sums totaling Rs. 32 lakhs, under the impression that they were necessary to comply with legal obligations imposed by the impostors.

It was only when she was instructed to transfer an additional Rs. 20 lakhs for bail that she sought assistance from her family, which led to the filing of a complaint at the Shivaji Nagar Police station in Govandi. Unfortunately, the FIR's delayed registration allowed the fraudsters to remove the majority of the funds, leaving only Rs. 3.13 lakhs, which could be frozen in time. The Court critically noted the missed opportunity to apprehend the fraudsters during the substantial time taken by police to act.

On Wednesday, Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegaonkar informed the bench that two suspects had been arrested in Gujarat regarding an online fraud case, yet nothing was recovered from them. The court expressed disappointment at the Mumbai Police's failure to apprehend the suspects promptly, highlighting that they had a significant opportunity to do so while the fraudsters were still online.

The bench raised concerns about the effectiveness of police actions in protecting senior citizens, questioning why individuals feel compelled to approach the High Court due to police inaction. It emphasized the plight of many citizens who struggle to get assistance in such circumstances.

The court specifically cited the case of a retired teacher who lost Rs. 32 lakh, stressing the hardship for someone who had saved for retirement. It criticized the police for taking over a month to file a First Information Report (FIR), imploring that freezing assets promptly is crucial for protecting victims, particularly senior citizens.

The bench insisted on the need for immediate registration of complaints related to cyber crimes, urging the police to reform their processes to enhance efficiency. It expected a faster and more responsive system to be in place.

Furthermore, when Venegaonkar mentioned the lack of personnel in the Cyber Police unit, with only two officers managing over 400 cases, the bench rejected the excuse of prioritizing larger scams. It called for an increase in trained manpower to handle fraud cases effectively.

The bench made it clear that the current situation would serve as a test case, pushing for the implementation of new guidelines to ensure better support and protection for citizens against cyber crimes.