Act I – The Fraud

• Vikrant Chavan approached the victim with the promise of arranging a loan through IDFC Bank.

• He demanded ₹7 lakhs as a service charge, which the victim paid via online bank transfer.

• Vikrant even issued a written note acknowledging receipt of the money and later handed over a fake sanction letter, creating the illusion of legitimacy.

• The victim, relying on this documentation, believed the loan process was genuine.

Act II – The Betrayal

• When the truth emerged, the victim realized the sanction letter was fraudulent.

• Despite clear proof of payment and written acknowledgment, Vikrant Chavan refused to return the money.

• The victim faced severe harassment, financial loss, and emotional distress, unable to recover the funds.

Act III – Seeking Justice

• The victim approached Advocate at Bombay High court, requesting a case be filed against Vikrant Chavan.

• Dhanpal Jain escalated the matter to Vakola Police Station, repeatedly urging officer Yogita to register the complaint.

• Officer Yogita took a statement but twisted the facts, claiming the amount was transferred in Karnataka, and refused to file the complaint.

• This refusal persisted despite the victim’s residence in Mumbai and despite directions from the Addl. C.P, Bandra West to proceed.

Act IV – The Harassment

• The victim is trapped in a cycle of institutional harassment:

• Police inaction despite clear evidence.

• Twisting of facts to avoid registering the FIR.

• Denial of justice even after higher authority intervention.

⚖️ What Type of Harassment Is This?

This situation reflects institutional harassment and denial of justice, specifically:

• Dereliction of duty: Police refusing to file a complaint despite evidence and directions.

• Victim-blaming and fact distortion: Twisting facts to shift jurisdiction and avoid responsibility.

• Obstruction of justice: Blocking the victim’s access to legal remedies.

• Abuse of authority: Using procedural excuses to deny rightful action. - on this matter Advocate, at Bombay High court - Dhanpal Jain has said " Vakola Police station has abdicated their responsibility by not registering F.I.R. for 

conizable offence.

Section 173 of the BNSS granted statutory recognition to the concept of Zero FIR, which now deals with the registration of FIRs in cognizable cases. Zero FIR has been introduced with the primary purpose of ensuring that victims can file complaints regardless of jurisdiction.”.

I have repeatedly visited Vakola Police station & given them written complaints on behalf of the victim of financial fraud. But police officials cite jurisdiction issues."