Father Lost ₹2.97 Lakh to a Telegram Crypto Scam — Here’s How He Got the Money Back

One of my clients recently had a case which I am explaining below and if you are stuck in such similar situation, here is what to do.

Note: Due to attorney-client privilege, I cannot disclose complete case details or identify the actual parties involved. However, I am sharing the essential facts and legal approach so that if you find yourself in a similar situation, you can understand the available solutions and legal remedies.

TL;DR: Cash deposited into a fraudster’s bank account is still a credited sum that can be frozen. Filing an FIR is mandatory when a cognizable offence is disclosed — the mode of payment doesn’t change that. Lien marking and account freezes remain possible even after many days, and the victim’s local police station has jurisdiction.

Ramesh Patel, 54, a retired government employee from Lucknow, never imagined a Telegram channel named “CryptoBazaar” would upend his savings. The channel offered USDT at a slight discount, and Ramesh decided to buy. He sent ₹97,000 via UPI to a PNB account in Panchkula. Then, on two separate days in mid-June 2024, he deposited cash totalling ₹98,000 into an SBI account and another ₹1,02,000 into an Axis Bank account — all through cash deposit machines right there in Lucknow. No crypto ever arrived. The channel vanished. He filed a cyber complaint on the NCRP portal. But the 1930 helpline told him cash deposits couldn’t be booked. That’s when he approached the Chamber of Advocate Sudhir Rao. Earlier attempts to get the police to act had failed — they kept insisting the money was “tendered physically” and therefore not traceable. Make no mistake, that position is legally unsound. Advocate Sudhir Rao and his office immediately prepared a detailed complaint pointing out that the funds had been credited into three KYC-verified accounts, and the bank statements themselves constituted documentary evidence of cheating. The domain-specific experience here turned the case around. Within a week, a formal FIR was registered under Sections 318 and 61(2) BNS at the local police station in Lucknow. The investigating officer issued freeze orders under Section 106 BNSS, and a substantial portion of the money was recovered before it could be withdrawn.

Key Facts of the Case

• Ramesh Patel transferred ₹2,97,000 across five transactions to three bank accounts in Panchkula, Ahmedabad, and Raipur between 12 and 14 June 2024.
• One payment was UPI; the remaining four were cash deposited at CDMs — all slips with terminal IDs, timestamps, and transaction numbers were preserved.
• The complete Telegram chat export, account numbers with IFSC, and a self-traced mobile number of one beneficiary were on hand.
• 1930 helpline erroneously claimed cash deposits cannot form the basis for an FIR.
• Accounts were KYC-verified, meaning beneficiaries were identifiable and bank liens were still possible more than ten days after the transfers.
• Advocate Sudhir Rao argued that jurisdiction lay where the victim suffered the loss and initiated the transactions — Lucknow police station had full competence.

The Direct Legal Answer

Does the mode of payment matter for an FIR or lien marking?

Not in the slightest. Cheating under Section 318 BNS is complete the moment a person is dishonestly induced to deliver property. Whether that property is handed over in cash, through UPI, or by barter is irrelevant. The credits hit KYC-verified accounts, and those accounts can be frozen under Section 106 BNSS — the police merely need to inform the bank that the funds are proceeds of crime.

Is lien marking still possible ten days later?

Yes. Most fraudsters wait before emptying accounts, and banks can place a debit freeze retroactively. The police or the victim (through a court order) can request immediate lien marking. In this case, funds were still resting in two of the three accounts when the order was executed.

Which police station has jurisdiction?

Jurisdiction in cyber fraud and multi-state cheating cases follows the principle that the FIR can be registered where any part of the cause of action arises. Since the victim resided in Lucknow, the instructions were received there, and the cash was deposited at Lucknow CDMs, the local police station could not refuse to register the FIR on territorial grounds. The Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. (2014) judgment makes FIR registration mandatory if a cognizable offence is disclosed.

Can the structuring across accounts attract conspiracy charges?

It certainly can. Section 61(2) BNS covers criminal conspiracy when two or more persons agree to do an illegal act. Multiple accounts in different states, synchronised withdrawals, and coordinated closure of the Telegram channel indicate a pre-planned design. Adding this section does not delay FIR registration — it can be invoked later during investigation. In this case, Advocate Sudhir Rao ensured the complaint mentioned the multi-account pattern, which prompted the police to explore the organised angle.

How do we preserve CCTV footage from CDMs and bank branches?

The investigating officer has the power to seize or demand preservation under Section 105 BNSS. The victim can also send a formal request to the bank’s nodal officer, asking them to retain the footage as it might be required in a criminal investigation. Copies of those requests should be kept and submitted to the IO. In Ramesh’s case, a letter from the advocate’s office to the bank branches in Ahmedabad and Panchkula triggered internal hold orders on the footage.

Advice in Such Cases

Consult with Lawyer: The very basic and important step to start is talk to Lawyer / advocate. You should not hesitate in paying his consultation fee i.e. might be in range of Rs. 10,000 to 50,000 depends case to case. He is helping you in this situation to come out. He is expert in the domain and can help you explain the procedure which you might have never explored. A good lawyer can get the issues resolved much faster than you think.

Don’t wait. Every hour that passes lets the fraudster move the money further. Preserve every shred of evidence — screenshots, deposit slips, chat logs, voice notes, everything.

And here’s the thing — cyber fraud involving cryptocurrency and multi-state accounts has procedural knots that a general practitioner might not navigate daily. Engaging an advocate who regularly handles such online financial frauds often makes the difference between an FIR being registered in three days or three months.

Applicable Sections of Law

• Section 318 BNS: Cheating — dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
• Section 61(2) BNS: Criminal conspiracy — where two or more persons agree to commit an illegal act.
• Section 106 BNSS: Power of police to order attachment of property involved in an offence.
• Section 173(4) BNSS: Approach the Superintendent of Police if the station officer refuses to record the FIR.

Punishment and Penalties

Under Section 318 BNS, cheating is punishable with imprisonment up to three years, or with fine, or both. When the cheating is accompanied by delivery of property, the imprisonment may extend to seven years and a fine, depending on the value and nature. The offence under Section 61 BNS — conspiracy — carries the punishment for the substantive offence itself. These offences are cognizable, meaning the police can arrest without a warrant, and generally non-bailable, though bail may be granted by the court. They are also non-compoundable, though restitution can heavily influence judicial discretion.

Jurisdiction — Where to File the Case

The First Information Report can be lodged at the police station where the victim resides or where any part of the transaction occurred — in this case, Lucknow, where the cash was deposited and the fraudulent inducement was received. Jurisdiction for trial lies with the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class in that district. For cyber-linked financial fraud, the victim’s local cyber crime police station or the nearest police station with cyber jurisdiction is the correct starting point.

What if Police Refuse to File FIR?

• Submit the complaint in writing to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) BNSS. The SP must direct an investigation or investigate personally.
• File a private complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate under the BNSS provisions for taking cognizance. The Magistrate can order the police to investigate under the same powers they have on an FIR.
• As a last resort, approach the High Court under its writ jurisdiction — though this is rarely needed once a well-drafted complaint reaches the SP.

Rights of the Accused

• Right to remain silent and protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
• Right to be informed of the grounds of arrest and to consult a legal practitioner of choice under Article 22.
• Right to be produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest.
• Right to receive a copy of the FIR and all documents relied upon by the prosecution.

Bail Provisions

Cheating under Section 318 BNS is a non-bailable offence ordinarily. If arrested, the accused must apply for regular bail under Section 483 BNSS before the Magistrate. Anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS can be sought from the Sessions Court or High Court before arrest, especially if there is a fear of misuse of the criminal process. Courts often grant bail in such economic offences with conditions — surety, passport surrender, and cooperation with investigation.

Quashing of FIR / Case

The High Court can quash an FIR using its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS if no prima facie case is made out or if the complaint is an abuse of process. In cheating cases, if the accused returns the entire money and the victim agrees to a settlement, a joint petition for quashing can succeed. But early quashing is rarely possible when the investigation is still tracing the syndicate — the court will usually let the probe play out.

If You Are the Victim

• Immediately call 1930 and register the complaint on the NCRP portal — but don’t stop there.
• Write to your bank and the beneficiary banks, marked to their nodal officers, requesting a freeze on the accounts.
• Collect all payment confirmations, CDM slips, and screenshots of the chat.
• Visit the local police station with a detailed written complaint. If they refuse, escalate to the SP in writing.
• Engage an advocate who understands the interplay between banking regulations, the BNSS, and cyber fraud investigation procedures.

Documents You Must Keep Ready

• Aadhaar card and PAN card of the victim.
• Bank account statements showing the disputed transactions.
• Original cash deposit machine slips with terminal ID and timestamp.
• Complete export of Telegram or WhatsApp chat, with timestamps intact.
• UPI transaction IDs or screenshots from the payment app.
• Any communication with the fraudsters — voice notes, call recordings, emails.
• Copy of the NCRP complaint acknowledgment.
• Self-collected beneficiary account numbers, IFSC codes, and mobile numbers if available.

What Evidence Is Required?

• Primary evidence: Bank statements reflecting the credits into the fraudster accounts, CDM slips, UPI screenshots.
• Digital evidence: Chat logs, call records, IP logs if available — these must be preserved and certified under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act (now under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam).
• CCTV footage: From the cash deposit machines and the beneficiary bank branches — this can establish identity.
• KYC details: The police can requisition these from the respective banks to link the account holder to the crime.
• Mobile number traces: The number traced by the victim can be mapped to a person through the telecom provider.

How the Police Behave in Such Cases

Expect initial reluctance. Officers often view cash-deposit fraud as less amenable to electronic fund reversal, and the 1930 helpline sometimes gives incomplete guidance. Station house officers may claim jurisdiction doesn’t lie with them. But once a complaint is drafted with precise sections, transaction references, and mention of the Lalita Kumari judgment, the tone shifts. Cyber cells cooperate more proactively when they see the advocate has already collated the KYC trail. Persistence works.

Timeline of Legal Process

• Day 1–7: Filing of complaint, escalation to SP if needed, FIR registration.
• Day 7–14: Freeze orders under Section 106 BNSS issued to banks, CCTV preservation letters sent.
• Day 30–60: Investigation and collection of account statements, KYC details, and CDR analysis.
• Day 60–90: Filing of chargesheet (final report) under Section 193 BNSS.
• Post-chargesheet: Court takes cognizance, frames charges, trial commences — this can take 6–18 months depending on court workload.
• Judgment and recovery: Simultaneously, the victim can file for restitution of money under Section 125 BNSS.

How Long Will the Investigation Take?

In a multi-account cyber fraud with cash deposits, investigation typically wraps up within 60 to 90 days. If the fraud involves a larger syndicate and requires CDR analysis or tracing of multiple beneficiaries, the police may seek extension of time. Chargesheet filing within that window is crucial — delays beyond 90 days can trigger default bail for an accused in custody.

Understanding the Costs

The total cost of a matter like this varies significantly from one case to the next — it depends on the complexity of the dispute, the forum involved, the number of hearings, and the specific facts of your situation. There is no single fixed figure that applies to everyone.

A professional advocate can give you an accurate estimate only after reviewing all your facts and documents in a consultation.

Can the Matter Be Settled Out of Court?

In cases of cheating under Section 318 BNS, the offence is not easily compoundable if the amount is substantial and involves organised elements. However, if the accused returns the full amount with interest and the victim agrees not to pursue the matter, a petition for quashing can be filed before the High Court under Section 528 BNSS. Courts have allowed such settlements where the dispute is essentially private and no large public interest is at stake. Mediation is not the usual route for a completed fraud, but a Lok Adalat can settle the civil recovery aspect if a parallel civil suit is filed.

Common Mistakes People Make

• Delaying the complaint — every hour matters for freezing accounts. Accounts are often emptied within 48 hours.
• Filing a vague complaint without specific account numbers, IFSC, and transaction references — that gives the police an excuse to not register an FIR.
• Destroying CDM slips or chat logs out of frustration.
• Posting on social media instead of preserving the evidence for a formal investigation — this can alert the fraudsters.
• Engaging an advocate who doesn’t regularly handle cyber-enabled financial fraud. Domain-specific experience directly shapes how evidence is collated, which sections are invoked, and how quickly the accounts are frozen — a generalist may miss procedural shortcuts that are second nature to a specialist in this area.

FAQs People Normally Have

Can the police really refuse an FIR because the payment was cash?

No. The legality of FIR registration and account freezing under Section 106 BNSS has nothing to do with how the money was deposited. If the offence of cheating is made out, FIR must be registered.

What if the money has already been withdrawn from the beneficiary account?

Even then, the bank can place a negative balance freeze, and the account holder remains liable. In some cases, the funds can be traced to linked accounts or to the next layer of transfers.

Is it worth adding conspiracy charges?

Yes. It broadens the investigation scope and often helps uncover the syndicate behind the Telegram channel. The police take the case more seriously when organised crime elements are alleged.

How fast should CCTV footage be preserved?

Most banks retain footage for 30 to 90 days. A preservation request should be sent within a week — sooner the better. Once overwritten, that evidence is gone.

Can I recover the money without a criminal case?

It’s possible if the bank voluntarily reverses the transaction or the fraudster returns it under threat of legal action. But typically, a criminal complaint is the most effective way to freeze accounts and force resolution.

This article is general legal information, not legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate about your specific situation.

Advocate Sudhir Rao, Supreme Court of India

Facing a similar matter? Speak to a criminal advocate in Delhi — Advocate Sudhir Rao appears in bail, trial and appellate matters before the Delhi District Courts, the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India.