Tinder Match, ₹52 lakh gone! How a Haryana judge was duped; honey trap suspected

A Haryana judicial officer was duped of more than ₹52 lakh by a man she allegedly met on Tinder, after which a Delhi court refused bail to the accused in the cheating case.

While rejecting the bail plea, the court said the case appeared “consistent with the hypothesis of a honey trap” and questioned why the FIR had been filed not in the officer’s name but in the name of her domestic worker, Diksha Devi. Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Partap Singh Laler said the money trail did not support the way the complaint had been presented.

The court noted that “the overwhelming majority of the transactions, all except the final cash deposit of Rs 5 lakh, 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,” and added, “Diksha Devi did not initiate or make a single digital payment throughout the entire period.”

It also said that a judicial officer had approached the criminal justice system indirectly rather than in her own name. Acknowledging the embarrassment that may come with such a scam, the court said, “The officer’s personal discomfort cannot be permitted to compromise the integrity of a criminal investigation.”

The accused claimed the relationship was consensual and that the officer herself had suggested investments in online gaming and betting platforms. However, after examining the material on record, the court said, “The present matter bears all the hallmarks of this pattern.”

According to the complaint, the officer matched with a man who introduced himself as “Abhimanyu Vashishth” and claimed to work in a secret government department. Their contact began in November and later developed into a relationship. The prosecution said the officer then transferred ₹52,81,999 to accounts linked to the accused after he persuaded her to invest with promises of high returns. When the promised returns did not come, allegations of cheating and fraud followed.

The accused was arrested and sent to judicial custody before moving the sessions court after a lower court denied him bail. The order also pointed to gaps in the investigation. Police had not collected Tinder records, complete WhatsApp chats, call detail records or details of intermediary entities through which the money was allegedly moved.

The court also said the accused had selectively produced messages, withheld his replies and denied access to his phone, remarking, “The accused is playing hide and seek.” Citing the incomplete investigation and pending forensic analysis, the court denied bail and directed investigators to collect the missing digital records, verify the alleged meetings and speed up the phone examination.