In short. This page is for two kinds of people: those named or questioned in an online fraud FIR, and victims who want the police to act or their money back. If you are accused, the usual remedies are a reply to the police notice, anticipatory or regular bail, and in suitable cases quashing in the Delhi High Court. If you are a victim, the steps are a quick complaint on 1930, an FIR, and a High Court petition if the police do nothing. Bail matters can be heard within days; quashing and writs take months.
Is this your situation?
- Delhi Police cyber cell has sent you a notice, or called you about money that passed through your account.
- You are named in an online fraud, loan app, crypto or investment scam FIR and fear arrest.
- Police from another state have registered a cyber FIR against you while you live in Delhi.
- You lost money to a digital arrest call, a fake trading app or a UPI fraud and the police are not acting.
- Morphed photos, intimate images or a fake profile of you are circulating online.
- Your bank account was frozen because a disputed payment reached it.
- You want an FIR quashed after settling with the person who complained.
Two sides of the same case
Cyber fraud cases in Delhi involve two groups who need very different things. The person who lost money wants the FIR registered, the money traced and frozen, and the people responsible found. The person whose phone number, bank account or social media profile shows up in the money trail wants to avoid arrest, explain their role, and get their account and devices back. Many of the people in the second group are not the fraudsters at all: they sold goods, sold crypto, rented out an account for a small fee without understanding the risk, or had their identity stolen.
The Delhi High Court sees both groups. For the accused, it hears anticipatory and regular bail after the Sessions Court, and petitions to quash FIRs. For victims, it hears writ petitions when the police will not register an FIR or investigate properly, petitions to transfer investigation to a specialised unit, and cases seeking removal of intimate images or fake content from online platforms. This page goes through each in turn, and points out where the High Court is not the right first step.
How a cyber case starts in Delhi
Most online fraud complaints begin with a call to the 1930 helpline or a complaint on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal. That system, run under the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre, sends alerts to the banks and wallets that received the money, so that the amount can be put on hold. The complaint then goes to the police for an FIR. In Delhi, each police district has a cyber police station, and serious or inter-state cases often go to the Intelligence Fusion and Strategic Operations (IFSO) unit of the Special Cell.
An FIR can be registered as an e-FIR or a zero FIR under Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (BNSS) (old Section 154 CrPC). For offences punishable with three to seven years, which covers most cheating cases, Section 173(3) BNSS allows the police to conduct a preliminary enquiry of up to fourteen days, with a senior officer's permission, before registering the FIR. Victims are sometimes told this is why nothing is happening; the enquiry has a time limit, and once it is over the police must register the FIR or tell the complainant why not.
For the accused, the first sign is usually a call from an officer, a notice under Section 35 BNSS (old Section 41A CrPC) asking you to appear, or a message from your bank that your account has been frozen. Sometimes there is no warning, and officers from another state arrive at your door. Our guide on zero FIR and e-FIR under the BNSS explains how the case can move between police stations and states.
The laws used in cyber cases
Sections 66, 66C and 66D, Information Technology Act 2000
Section 66 punishes dishonest or fraudulent acts covered by Section 43, such as unauthorised access or introducing a virus. Section 66C covers identity theft (fraudulent use of another person's password, electronic signature or unique identification), and Section 66D covers cheating by personation using a computer resource. Each carries up to three years. Under Section 77B of the Act, offences punishable with three years are bailable, though they are cognizable, so the police can register and investigate without a court order.
Sections 66E, 67 and 67A, IT Act
Section 66E punishes capturing or publishing images of a person's private area without consent. Section 67 covers publishing obscene material electronically, and Section 67A sexually explicit material, which carries up to five years on a first conviction and is non-bailable.
Section 318, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (old Section 420 IPC)
Cheating. Where the person cheated is induced to deliver property, Section 318(4) carries up to seven years and is non-bailable. Most online fraud FIRs use this, often with Section 319 (cheating by personation, old Section 419), Section 336 (forgery, old Section 463 to 465), Section 61 (criminal conspiracy, old Section 120B) and, in larger rings, Section 111 (organised crime, a new offence that expressly includes cyber crimes).
Sections 77, 78, 308 and 356, BNS
Voyeurism (old Section 354C IPC), stalking including monitoring a woman's use of the internet or email (old Section 354D), extortion, which covers sextortion (old Section 384), and defamation (old Sections 499 and 500).
Section 63, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 (old Section 65B Evidence Act)
Electronic records are proved with a certificate in the form set out in the Schedule to the Act. Without a proper certificate, screenshots and printouts can run into trouble at trial.
The cases we see most often
The patterns repeat. Digital arrest calls, where someone posing as a CBI, customs or police officer keeps a person on video call for hours and makes them transfer money to avoid an imaginary arrest. Investment and trading apps that show fake profits and then demand fees to withdraw. Part-time task scams that pay small amounts first and then take large deposits. Loan apps that harass borrowers with morphed photos. Fake customer care numbers. OLX and marketplace frauds. SIM swap and OTP frauds.
On the accused side, the people who come to us are often several steps removed from the actual cheat. A student who sold USDT on a peer-to-peer platform and received money that turned out to be fraud proceeds. A small trader whose current account received a payment for goods. A person who opened an account for a friend, or allowed it to be used for a commission, without knowing it would be a mule account. A company director whose firm's name was misused. Their cases turn on knowledge and dishonest intention, which the police often assume rather than investigate.
There are also genuine organised operations, with call centres, dozens of SIM cards and layers of accounts. Courts treat those very differently, and a person found with that kind of material should expect a hard road on bail.
If you are accused: the first forty-eight hours
Do not ignore a notice under Section 35 BNSS. If you comply with it and cooperate, arrest is generally not justified unless the officer records reasons, and the Supreme Court's ruling in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) applies to offences punishable up to seven years, which covers Section 318(4) BNS and the IT Act offences. Reply in writing, appear on the date or ask for a short adjournment with reasons, and take a copy of what you submit.
Do not delete chats, reset your phone, close the account or move money out of it. Each of those can be read as an attempt to destroy evidence, and some can become separate offences. Gather your own record instead: bank statements, platform transaction history, invoices, chat records with the buyer or employer, and anything that shows you dealt in good faith.
If police from another state arrive, ask for the FIR number, the police station and the officer's identity, and inform family. The Delhi High Court has laid down that police from another state arresting someone in Delhi should inform the local police station and produce the person before the nearest magistrate for transit remand. If you learn of an out-of-state FIR before arrest, a transit anticipatory bail application in Delhi can give you time to approach the court in that state; our guide on transit anticipatory bail explains how it works.
When Advocate B.K. Singh reads a cyber fraud FIR for an accused, he looks first at where the client sits in the money trail: first-layer account, second or third layer, or a person who only received payment for goods. Most of the bail and quashing strategy follows from that.
Bail in online fraud cases
Where only IT Act offences carrying three years are alleged, the offences are bailable and you are entitled to bail as of right under Section 478 BNSS (old Section 436 CrPC). Once Section 318(4) BNS is added, which is almost always, the case becomes non-bailable and bail is discretionary. Anticipatory bail is sought under Section 482 BNSS (old Section 438 CrPC), first before the Sessions Court and then the Delhi High Court, or directly in the High Court in suitable cases. Our page on anticipatory bail in the Delhi High Court covers the procedure.
In cyber cases courts look at a few things: the amount and how much has been traced or frozen, whether the accused received a large share or a small commission, whether devices and documents have already been recovered, whether there are similar FIRs in other places, and whether the accused has joined investigation. A person who has deposited or offered to deposit the amount that reached his account is often in a better position, though the court will not treat bail as a recovery tool.
Bail is harder where the police allege an organised ring, recover many SIM cards, phones or bank kits, or find that the accused ran the operation. Section 111 BNS (organised crime) carries heavy punishment and courts are cautious with it. Even there, long custody, the stage of the trial and the accused's actual role matter.
Quashing a cyber FIR in the Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court can quash an FIR registered in Delhi under Section 528 BNSS (old Section 482 CrPC). The grounds are those in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992): the FIR does not disclose an offence even if taken at face value, the allegations are absurd, or the proceedings are plainly malicious. A person who sold goods or crypto in a genuine transaction and received payment, with nothing to show knowledge of the fraud, sometimes fits these categories, but the court will want documents, not just an assertion.
Quashing on settlement is possible where the complainant has been repaid and has no grievance, following Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014). The Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat (2017) said serious offences against society are generally not quashed on settlement, and courts treat large organised cyber frauds with many victims in that light. A one-to-one fraud repaid in full is a very different case. See our page on quashing an FIR after settlement.
If FIRs on the same facts have been registered in several states, the Delhi High Court can deal only with the Delhi FIR. Clubbing FIRs from different states, or transferring them to one place, is something only the Supreme Court can order under Article 32. The rule against a second FIR on the same incident, from T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001), often helps here, but each FIR still has to be dealt with in the right forum.
If you are a victim: getting the police to act
Report on 1930 or the portal as soon as you can, ideally within hours, because the chance of the money being held depends on how quickly the banks receive the alert. Then go to the cyber police station of your district with the acknowledgment, bank statements, screenshots and the numbers or accounts involved, and ask for an FIR. A cognizable offence must be registered (Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P., 2013), subject to the preliminary enquiry window in Section 173(3) BNSS.
If the police refuse, send a written complaint to the DCP of the district under Section 173(4) BNSS. If that also fails, apply to the magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS (old Section 156(3) CrPC), supported by an affidavit, for a direction to register and investigate. The High Court is usually approached only after these steps, or where the case is large, involves many victims, or the investigation has stalled. A writ petition can ask for registration of the FIR, transfer of investigation to the IFSO unit or another agency, or a time-bound status report. Our pages on police inaction in Delhi and transfer of investigation explain these petitions.
Victims sometimes want to go straight to the High Court with a demand for CBI investigation. Courts transfer investigation only in exceptional cases, such as a large inter-state racket the local police cannot handle or a clear lack of fairness. Being specific about what the police have failed to do helps far more than general complaints.
Getting your money back
Money traced and held in the recipient accounts is not returned automatically. The victim usually has to apply to the magistrate under Section 503 BNSS (old Section 457 CrPC) for release of the frozen amount, with the IO's report showing the trail. Courts commonly release it to the victim on an indemnity bond, so that it can be recovered if the trial later shows the money belonged to someone else. Where several victims claim the same frozen pool, the court may divide it in proportion.
For unauthorised transactions from your own account (a SIM swap, a cloned card, an OTP you never shared), the Reserve Bank of India's 2017 directions on customer liability in electronic banking limit your loss if you report quickly, in some cases to nothing. Write to your bank immediately and keep the complaint number; if the bank refuses, the RBI's ombudsman scheme is available before any court. These directions do not usually help where you were tricked into authorising the payment yourself.
Section 43 read with Section 46 of the IT Act also allows a claim for compensation before the Adjudicating Officer (the IT Secretary of the state government) for claims up to Rs 5 crore, with appeal to the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal. It is useful against a company or person who failed to protect data, less so against an untraceable fraudster. On the other side of the coin, account holders whose accounts were frozen should read getting a frozen bank account released.
Intimate images, deepfakes and fake profiles
Where intimate images, morphed photos or a fake profile are circulating, speed matters more than anything else. Under the IT Rules 2021, a platform must remove non-consensual intimate content within twenty-four hours of a complaint by the person shown or someone on their behalf. Use the platform's grievance officer, report on the cybercrime portal, and register an FIR under the IT Act and the BNS (Sections 66E, 67, 67A IT Act; Sections 77, 78 and 308 BNS as the facts require).
Where platforms do not act, or the content keeps reappearing, the Delhi High Court can direct removal and blocking. In X v. Union of India (2023), the court laid down directions for quick removal of non-consensual intimate images, including steps search engines must take so the same content does not keep coming back. Such petitions are often filed with the petitioner's identity masked.
Misuse of a person's name, face or voice for commercial purposes, or through deepfake videos, is dealt with through civil suits for personality rights; see personality rights and deepfakes. Defamatory posts can lead to a civil suit or a criminal complaint under Section 356 BNS; our page on criminal defamation explains the criminal route.
Electronic evidence decides most cyber cases
A cyber case is only as good as its digital record. For victims, that means preserving the original messages, call logs, UPI and bank transaction references, the URLs of fake apps and websites, and email headers, not just screenshots. Do not uninstall the app the fraudster asked you to install until the police have examined the phone. Write down the sequence of events while you remember it.
For the accused, the same principle applies in reverse. The prosecution has to prove the electronic record with a certificate under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, signed by the person in charge of the device or system and by an expert. The Supreme Court's ruling in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) made the certificate requirement strict under the old law, and the BSA has added further detail. Gaps in the chain of custody, missing hash values and unexplained delay in sending devices to the laboratory are all worth examining.
Where your phone or laptop was seized and is needed for work, it can usually be released after a forensic image is made; see our page on release of seized phones, cars and documents.
How a cyber case usually moves to the Delhi High Court
Collect the record
Accused: the notice, FIR number, bank statements, transaction history and chats. Victim: the 1930 or portal acknowledgment, bank statements, screenshots and FIR copy.
Use the first remedy
Accused: reply to the Section 35 notice and apply for anticipatory bail in the Sessions Court of the district where the FIR is registered. Victim: complaint to the DCP under Section 173(4) BNSS, then the magistrate under Section 175(3).
Prepare the High Court petition
If the first remedy fails or the case calls for it, prepare a bail application, a quashing petition under Section 528 BNSS, or a writ under Article 226. Attach the orders of the lower court and the documents that answer the police case.
File and seek urgent listing
Bail and takedown matters can be mentioned for urgent listing. Quashing petitions and writs are listed in the ordinary course, usually within days to a few weeks of filing.
First hearing and status report
The court usually issues notice to the State and asks the police for a status report. Interim protection from arrest or interim directions to platforms may be given at this stage.
Final hearing and compliance
After the status report, the court hears the matter and passes final orders. Comply with every condition, such as joining investigation or depositing an amount, and keep proof.
Which court hears it, and when the Delhi High Court has jurisdiction
The trial court is the court of the area where the FIR is registered: the Metropolitan Magistrate or Sessions Court at the district court complex covering that cyber police station. Bail first goes to the Sessions Court, and then to the Delhi High Court under Section 483 BNSS (old Section 439 CrPC). For a regular bail application, see bail from the Delhi High Court.
The Delhi High Court can quash only FIRs registered in Delhi, and grant regular bail only in Delhi cases. If the FIR is in Haryana, Uttar Pradesh or any other state, the High Court of that state is the normal forum, even if you live in Delhi. The exception is transit anticipatory bail, which a Delhi court can grant for a limited period so that you can reach the court in the other state, following Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka (2023).
Writ petitions against Delhi Police, or against central agencies and intermediaries with offices in Delhi, can be filed in the Delhi High Court under Article 226(2) where part of the cause of action arose in Delhi. A victim in Noida who was defrauded through an account in Delhi may sometimes have a choice of forum, but the court will look at where the real cause of action lies.
Time and cost at each stage
| Stage | Typical time | Court fee and costs |
|---|---|---|
| Reply to Section 35 notice | Within the date in the notice | None |
| Anticipatory bail in Sessions Court | 1 to 4 weeks | Nominal court fee |
| Anticipatory or regular bail in Delhi High Court | First hearing within days; decision in 2 to 8 weeks | Nominal court fee; check the current court fee |
| Victim's complaint to DCP and magistrate | 2 to 8 weeks | Nominal court fee for Section 175(3) application |
| Quashing petition in Delhi High Court | 3 to 12 months | Nominal court fee; costs of compliance if settlement is involved |
| Writ for takedown of content | Interim order often at first hearing | Nominal court fee; check the current court fee |
| Release of frozen money to victim | 1 to 3 months after application | Nominal court fee; indemnity bond |
Documents to keep ready
If you are accused
- Notice under Section 35 BNSS or the FIR copy
- Bank statements for at least three months around the disputed transaction
- Platform transaction history (for crypto or marketplace sales)
- Invoices, delivery records, chats with the buyer or counterparty
- Letters from the bank about any freeze
- Proof of identity, residence and employment
If you are a victim
- 1930 or cybercrime portal acknowledgment number
- Bank and UPI transaction references with dates and times
- Screenshots plus the original messages and call logs on the phone
- Names, numbers, URLs, app names and account details used by the fraudster
- FIR copy, or your written complaint with receipt
- Letters to the DCP and the bank, with proof of delivery
A made-up example: a crypto seller in Laxmi Nagar
Here's a made-up example. Aman, 24, lives in Laxmi Nagar and trades USDT on a peer-to-peer platform. A buyer pays him Rs 1.8 lakh by bank transfer and receives the crypto. Two weeks later his bank account is frozen, and he gets a notice under Section 35 BNSS from a cyber police station in north-west Delhi. A retired teacher in Rohini lost Rs 9 lakh to a digital arrest call, and part of her money reached Aman's account.
Aman appears with his platform records showing the sale, the KYC of the buyer as shown on the platform, and the chat. The IO says the investigation is continuing and his role is unclear. Aman applies for anticipatory bail in the Sessions Court, which grants interim protection on condition that he joins investigation. His lawyer also applies to the magistrate for partial release of the account, keeping Rs 1.8 lakh on hold.
Months later the police trace the call centre. Aman is shown as a witness, not an accused, in the chargesheet. The teacher applies under Section 503 BNSS for release of the frozen Rs 1.8 lakh to her, and Aman does not object. Had the platform records not existed, or had Aman received many similar payments, his case would have looked very different.
Mistakes on both sides
- Accused: deleting chats or closing the account. It rarely helps and often hurts. Keep everything and let your lawyer decide what to submit.
- Accused: renting out a bank account for a commission. Many people think it is harmless. It is the single most common way ordinary people end up as accused in cyber fraud FIRs.
- Accused: going to the Delhi High Court with an out-of-state FIR. Only transit relief is possible here. Regular bail and quashing belong in the state where the FIR is registered.
- Victim: waiting days before reporting. The money moves through layers within hours. Report on 1930 first, then go to the police station.
- Victim: paying a recovery agent. People who promise to recover lost money for an advance fee are often running a second fraud. Work only through the police, your bank and the courts.
- Both: relying on screenshots alone. Keep the original device and records. Screenshots help explain the case but are weak proof on their own.
What to do this week
If you have received a notice or learned of an FIR, collect your bank and transaction records, do not delete anything, and get advice before you appear. If the FIR is in another state, find out the police station and consider transit protection. If you are a victim, make sure the 1930 or portal complaint is registered, follow up with the cyber police station for an FIR, and write to the DCP if nothing happens in a reasonable time.
Advocate B.K. Singh's advice to clients on both sides is the same at this stage: write things down, keep proof of every message you send to the police or the bank, and do not let anyone rush you into a payment or a statement. Our guide on getting an account unfrozen after a cyber fraud complaint and the page on quashing an FIR in the Delhi High Court cover the next steps in more detail.
For advice on your notice, FIR or complaint, or for updates on how the courts are handling cyber fraud cases, contact Advocate B.K. Singh.
Frequently asked questions
Is Section 66D of the IT Act bailable?
Yes. Section 66D carries up to three years, and under Section 77B of the IT Act such offences are bailable. But most online fraud FIRs also add Section 318(4) BNS, which is non-bailable, so bail becomes discretionary.
Can I be arrested for money that came into my account from a scam?
It is possible, especially if the police think you knew or shared in the fraud. If you received the money in a genuine sale or transaction, keep the records and seek advice before appearing; anticipatory bail is often the safer course.
Can the Delhi High Court quash a cyber FIR registered in Haryana or UP?
Ordinarily no. An FIR registered in another state is quashed by that state's High Court. A Delhi court can grant transit anticipatory bail for a limited period so that you can approach the right court.
How do I file a cyber crime complaint in Delhi?
Call 1930 or file on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal first, then visit the cyber police station of your district with the acknowledgment and your documents. If no FIR is registered, write to the DCP and then apply to the magistrate.
Will I get my money back after an online fraud?
Only the amount traced and held in the recipient accounts can usually be returned, through a magistrate's order under Section 503 BNSS. Quick reporting makes a big difference to how much is held.
What is a digital arrest scam?
It is a fraud where callers pose as police, CBI or customs officers on video and claim you are under arrest, then demand money to settle the matter. No law enforcement agency arrests anyone by video call or asks for money to close a case.
Can a cyber fraud case be settled?
Cheating can often be compounded or quashed after the victim is repaid, especially in a one-to-one case. Courts are slower to accept settlement in large organised frauds with many victims.
How quickly can intimate images be removed from the internet?
Platforms must remove non-consensual intimate content within twenty-four hours of a complaint under the IT Rules 2021. If they do not, the Delhi High Court can direct removal and blocking, often at the first hearing.