Tinder Date, Bogus Investment: How Haryana Judge Was Defrauded Of Rs 52 Lakh

A Delhi court denied bail to a man accused of cheating a Haryana judicial officer of more than Rs 52 lakh through an alleged online romance scam that began on dating application Tinder. The court also expressed deep anguish on the conduct of the judge, who filed the case in the name of her domestic helper. 

Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Partap Singh Laler of the Patiala House Courts dismissed the bail plea of accused Deepak Vats, observing that he had received substantial funds, withheld crucial electronic evidence and failed to cooperate with the investigation.

The court said the material on record prima facie reflected a pattern commonly seen in online romance scams and noted that the financial transactions were "consistent with the hypothesis of a honey trap".

Relationship Began On Tinder

According to the prosecution, the judicial officer came into contact with the accused on Tinder in November last year. The accused allegedly introduced himself as "Abhimanyu Vashishth" and claimed to be an officer in a secret government department.

The two subsequently developed a relationship, during which the judge allegedly transferred nearly than Rs 52 lakh to bank accounts linked to the accused. Prosecutors claimed the money was transferred after the accused persuaded her to invest on the promise of high returns. The promised returns never materialised, leading to allegations of cheating and fraud.

Court Questions Complaint Filed Through Domestic Worker

The court also questioned the manner in which the complaint was filed. Instead of the judicial officer approaching the police herself, the FIR was registered in the name of her domestic worker, who claimed she had been cheated through an online dating application.

While examining the bail plea, the court found that nearly all of the transactions under scrutiny originated from the judicial officer's bank accounts and not from those of the domestic worker. "The complaint as filed does not seem to reflect the true complainant," the court observed.

The judge acknowledged the personal embarrassment and professional sensitivity a judicial officer may face after becoming a victim of an alleged honey trap. However, the court said such concerns could not justify withholding material facts. "The officer's personal discomfort cannot be permitted to compromise the integrity of a criminal investigation," the court said.

Judicial Officer Asked To Share Complete Records

The court noted that several crucial pieces of electronic evidence remained unavailable to investigators.

Despite the relationship allegedly beginning on Tinder, neither the Tinder chats nor the complete WhatsApp conversations between the parties had been placed on record. Call detail records had also not been collected.

The court said the judicial officer should provide investigators with her complete WhatsApp and Tinder communication history, explain the circumstances in which the payments were made and disclose who, if anyone, induced or directed those transfers. "The victim, being a judicial officer, is better placed than most to understand that the path to justice requires candour," the court observed.

Investigating Officer Also Criticised

The court also expressed serious displeasure with the conduct of the investigating officer.

It said an officer investigating a cyber fraud case involving more than Rs 52 lakh and a judicial officer was expected to demonstrate the highest standards of professional diligence and impartiality.

The judge noted that key electronic evidence had not been secured and that several aspects of the financial trail remained inadequately investigated. 

Court Says Truth Obscured By All Parties

The judge expressed "profound anguish" over the manner in which the case had been handled. "A matter that ought to be relatively straightforward - a cyber fraud case with a clear digital money trail - has been complicated, obfuscated, and rendered murky by the conduct of all three protagonists: the accused, the victim, and the investigating officer," the court observed.

The court said each appeared to be withholding material information, making it difficult to ascertain the truth.

The court was particularly critical of the accused, observing that he had selectively produced electronic records that supported his defence while withholding potentially incriminating material. "The accused is playing hide and seek," the court remarked.

Observing that the investigation was still at an early stage and that important evidence remained to be collected, the court declined to grant bail to the accused.