Dating App Fraud Intimate Chats Money Trail Support Honey Trap Theory Says Delhi Court

The case has come under sharp judicial scrutiny with the sessions court expressing anguish over the conduct of accused Deepak Vats, victim judicial officer Harshali Chowdhary and Delhi Police investigating officer sub-inspector Ajit Dadarwal.

’Civil servants, businessmen got involved in honey traps’

Dismissing the bail plea of Vats on June 9, additional sessions judge (ASJ) Saurabh Partap Singh Laler of the Patiala House Courts noted a regrettable, rising trend in cyber fraud.

“This court has, during the course of proceedings in cyber-fraud matters over the year, encountered a regrettable pattern in which individuals, including senior civil servants, professionals, and business persons of standing have been ensnared in digital arrest, investment fraud or romantic honey traps. The modus operandi is distressingly familiar: Initial contact through a dating application, rapid emotional escalation, deep intimacy, and progressive financial extraction under the guise of investments, gifts, or shared ventures. The present matter bears all the hallmarks of this pattern,” the ASJ stated.

‘Victim, complainant did not provide electronic evidence’

Pointing out a fundamental and glaring lacuna in the investigation, the court flagged that neither the victim judge nor her maid Diksha Devi, who is the complainant, had placed a single piece of electronic evidence on record. The ASJ in his order said the court must also observe that a judicial officer is involved in this matter as the real and principal victim.

“It is well recognised that when a person of standing and responsibility in the justice delivery system is involved in a criminal matter, the highest standard of transparency and forthcoming disclosure is expected. Chowdhary, being a member of the judicial service, is expected to be fully aware of the importance of electronic evidence in cyber fraud investigations,” the court said.

The ASJ said the entire corpus of electronic communications before this court consists solely and exclusively of what the accused has chosen to produce and even that is deliberately partial and one-sided.

‘Full story missing, court constrained to work with incomplete record’

Emphasising that documents don’t lie, the court pointed out that bank statements show transaction after transaction was made from Chowdhary’s accounts. The pay-in slip shows that the peon of Chowdhary’s court deposited the final cash amount.

The court ruled that Vats must remain in custody due to his prior criminal antecedents, his refusal to cooperate with the investigation of his phone, and the large sums of money transferred to his account.

*Delhi Police registered an e-FIR on February 1 for extortion, cheating, cheating by personation, and using forged documents against Deepak Vats.

*The FIR was filed by Diksha Devi, the judicial officer’s maid, who alleged she was cheated of ₹52.81 lakh by an unknown person via a dating app.

*The court revealed that bank statements showed the overwhelming majority of transactions—except a final ₹5 lakh cash deposit—came directly from the accounts of judicial officer Harshali Chowdhary, the actual victim.

*Police stated that Vats introduced himself as Abhimanyu Vashishth, falsely claiming to be an officer in a secret government department, and lured victims with promises of high-investment returns.

*Vats has prior criminal antecedents and was previously named in a 2019 cheating FIR.

Hitender Rao is Senior Associate Editor covering the state of Haryana. A journalist with over two decades of experience, he writes on politics, economy, migration and legal affairs with a focus on investigative journalism.Read More