Court condemns advocate's evasive conduct and bank officials' non-compliance in Rs.1.4 crore cyber fraud investigation, reserves right to initiate criminal contempt proceedings
In a significant judgment delivered on September 28, 2026, the Bombay High Court (Division Bench comprising Justices A. S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata) took a stern view of the non-cooperation by Kotak Mahindra Bank and its advocate in a high-profile cyber fraud investigation. The case involves the petitioner, Mr. Dhiren Sushil Roy, who alleged that he was defrauded of Rs. 1.40 crore-his lifetime savings-through a cyber fraud scheme allegedly involving bank and telecom employees.
The Court expressed deep displeasure over the persistent failure of bank officials, particularly from Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 (various banks including Kotak Mahindra Bank), to cooperate with the investigating agency despite repeated summons. The Public Prosecutor highlighted that officers from these banks had neither attended the police station nor furnished necessary information critical for probing the crime.
Particularly troubling for the Court was the conduct of Advocate Mr. Mandar Lalsare, representing Kotak Mahindra Bank (Respondent No. 5). Despite explicit oral directions from the Court to personally appear along with a senior bank official such as the Regional Manager, Area Manager, or General Manager, Mr. Lalsare failed to comply. Instead, he appeared through video conference (VC) from Thane, claimed to be engaged elsewhere at the Aurangabad Bench, and sent a proxy advocate in his place during the afternoon session. Moreover, the proxy was accompanied only by a junior officer, Ms. Swapnal Dhumal, Deputy Branch Manager, who was unable to satisfactorily respond to the Court's queries.
The Court found Mr. Lalsare's conduct to be a blatant disregard of judicial authority, describing it as evasive, unacceptable, and undermining the dignity of the Court. The legal department of Kotak Mahindra Bank was also censured for its casual approach in handling the matter, particularly for directing a junior officer to appear without ensuring proper instructions or senior representation.
Further, the Court criticized Advocate Mr. Atul Mishra, who appeared on behalf of Mr. Lalsare in the afternoon session. Mr. Mishra's casual statement that Mr. Lalsare was facing "personal difficulty" was found inadequate and unprofessional, as he had not taken complete instructions or verified the nature of the difficulty before making submissions.
In light of the above, the Court ordered the matter to be referred to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for "necessary and strict action" against Mr. Lalsare for professional misconduct and contemptuous disregard of Court orders. The Court expressly reserved its right to initiate criminal contempt proceedings under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, against the errant advocate.
Additionally, the Court directed all Regional Heads or Area Heads of the banks involved to personally appear on the next hearing date to answer the Court's queries and demonstrate prompt action towards the investigation.
This judgment underscores the judiciary's intolerance towards non-cooperation in cyber crime investigations and the imperative for legal professionals to uphold their duties with utmost sincerity and respect for Court directions.
Bottom Line:
Cyber fraud investigation - Non-cooperation by bank officials with investigating agency - Advocate's wilful disobedience of specific oral directions of Court and evasive conduct held to undermine authority of Court - Matter referred to Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, with Court reserving liberty to initiate criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Statutory provision(s):
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Section 2(c)
Dhiren Sushil Roy v. Cyber Police Station, (Bombay)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2998103
