The Punjab and Haryana High Court has instructed the Director Generals of Police in Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh to take stronger measures against cybercrime in all districts. The court found that the current legal framework is insufficient to address the scale of online fraud in the region, reports Hindustan Times.
Court’s core findings
During a bail hearing, Justice Sanjay Vashisth stated that cybercrime has reached “epidemic proportions” and now affects both urban and rural areas. The court observed that bank account holders live in constant fear of unauthorized withdrawals and called for legislative reform and stricter penalties to address the severity of the issue.
The case that prompted the ruling
The order was issued in response to a bail application related to an alleged cyber fraud of approximately Rs 73 lakh against complainant Vikram Midha. Advocate Sagar Panghal stated that about Rs 20 lakh was traced to the accused’s bank account. Panghal added that the accused received a WhatsApp link promoting online trading, clicked it, and transferred money into several bank accounts.
While granting bail, the court cautioned that if the accused is involved in a similar offence again, the bail will be cancelled and not reinstated.
The bench instructed the DGPs of the three jurisdictions to ensure that cybercrime cells in every district take proactive measures, with a focus on preventing suspicious funds from being transferred abroad before they can be traced or recovered.
Arguments on how fraud networks operate
During the hearing, it was argued that the masterminds behind cyber fraud rings typically evade law enforcement. Meanwhile, account holders and intermediaries, often paid small amounts to lend their bank accounts, are the ones who get arrested. In many cases, these account holders are unaware of who operates the account or where the money is sent after passing through.
Loan agents named as a weak point
Panghal told the court that some loan agents are allegedly being drawn into these networks. During loan processing, customers are sometimes asked to provide their bank account credentials for a period. Then those accounts are used to temporarily hold fraud proceeds before the money is transferred to foreign accounts. In several cases, account holders only learn of the misuse when police arrive to make an arrest, which results in individuals with no involvement in the fraud facing criminal charges.
Related precedent
The DGP directions reflect a consistent approach in the court’s rulings. In November 2025, Justice Sumeet Goel declined to quash an FIR in a Sonipat cyber-fraud case involving seven unauthorised transactions worth Rs 14.8 lakh, even though the parties had reached a compromise. Goel stated that cyber-fraud is a “sui generis” offence that causes “systemic erosion of trust” and cannot be resolved through private settlements. He cautioned that permitting such settlements would allow offenders to use restitution as a routine means of avoiding accountability. An NCRB data shows that cybercrime cases referred for trial increased from 13,941 in 2017 to 66,765 in 2022, while withdrawals and quashing of such cases remained rare. This supports the court’s view that cyber-fraud has public-law implications beyond the individual victim.
Also read:
Click Here For The Original Source.
