"Rapid digitisation of payments has outpaced the capacity of policing to deliver justice to cybercrime victims." Critically examine, with reference to institutional mechanisms such as I4C and CFCFRMS.

As digital payments have become part of daily life, financial cyber fraud has become the most common cybercrime [1]. The statement is only partly true. The Centre has built fast reporting and fund-freezing tools, but justice still gets stuck at the State police station.

Institutional mechanisms: where capacity has kept pace

• I4C is an attached office of MHA. It coordinates action against all types of cybercrime [2].
• Single-window reporting: complaints can be made through cybercrime.gov.in and the 1930 helpline. The portal gives special focus to crimes against women and children [3].
• CFCFRMS (2021) links banks and police in real time. Up to 31 December 2025, it saved more than ₹8,189 crore across more than 23.61 lakh complaints [4].
• National Cyber Forensic Laboratories in New Delhi and Assam (investigation) and Hyderabad (evidence) help investigating officers from State police [5].

Where policing still lags

• Federal mismatch: States/UTs are primarily responsible for investigation and prosecution, and the Centre only supports them [6]. Fraud crosses State borders, but each police force works only within its own jurisdiction.
• Under-reporting: only 49% of victims surveyed in SPIR 2026 (8,306 citizens, 16 States) said they complained to the police [1].
• Informal routes: bribes and personal contacts move complaints forward. Marginalised victims rely on them more, which shows that formal channels fail them most [1].
• "Saved" is not "returned": blocked money reaches victims only after a further legal process. How much is actually refunded is not published.
• Late outcome data: NCRB publishes charge-sheet and conviction figures, but years after the cases are registered [7].
• Forensic bottleneck: a few central labs serve investigators from police stations across the country [5].

Assessment: Complaint intake and fund-freezing have largely kept pace with digitisation. Investigation, prosecution and fair treatment at the police station have not.

India has digitised the reporting of cybercrime, but not yet the delivery of justice. Four steps would close the gap: time-bound FIR registration for portal complaints, publishing refund and charge-sheet data alongside "money saved", victim-feedback audits of police stations, and cyber forensic units at district level. Victim-centred policing of this kind would uphold equality before law (Article 14) and SDG 16.3's goal of equal access to justice.