A Haryana judicial officer has reportedly been defrauded of more than ₹52 lakh by a man she met on the dating app Tinder. The accused, who allegedly lured the officer into a sophisticated investment scam, was recently denied bail by a Delhi court, which highlighted the case's resemblance to a 'honey trap' operation.
The Tinder Connection and Fraudulent Investments
According to the complaint, the judicial officer matched with a man who introduced himself as “Abhimanyu Vashishth” and claimed to work for a confidential government department. Their relationship, which began in November, progressed, leading the accused to persuade the officer to invest in online gaming and betting platforms with promises of exceptionally high returns.
The prosecution states that the officer subsequently transferred a sum of ₹52,81,999 to various accounts linked to the accused. When the promised returns failed to materialize, allegations of cheating and fraud emerged, leading to the man's arrest.
Court Questions FIR Filing and Investigation Gaps
During the bail hearing, Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Partap Singh Laler noted several irregularities. The First Information Report (FIR) was filed not in the judicial officer's name, but in the name of her domestic worker, Diksha Devi. The court observed that nearly all financial transactions originated directly from the officer's accounts, not from the complainant Diksha Devi, who did not initiate any digital payments.
“The overwhelming majority of the transactions... were made not from the accounts of the complainant Diksha Devi, but directly from the accounts of a Haryana Judicial Officer, who is the actual and real victim in the present matter,” the court stated, adding that “Diksha Devi did not initiate or make a single digital payment throughout the entire period.”
The court acknowledged the potential embarrassment for the officer but emphasized that her “personal discomfort cannot be permitted to compromise the integrity of a criminal investigation.”
Accused Denies Fraud, Investigation Ongoing
The accused maintained that the relationship was consensual and that the officer herself had suggested investments in online gaming and betting. However, after reviewing the evidence, the court found the case bore “all the hallmarks” of a typical online fraud pattern.
Further complicating the matter, the court pointed to significant gaps in the police investigation. Authorities had not collected crucial digital evidence, including Tinder records, complete WhatsApp chats, or call detail records. The accused was also noted for selectively producing messages and denying access to his phone, prompting the court to remark, “The accused is playing hide and seek.”
Citing the incomplete investigation and pending forensic analysis, the court denied bail and instructed investigators to promptly gather the missing digital records, verify alleged meetings, and expedite the examination of the accused's phone.