There is a difference between no action and action without closure.

The public record concerning Sachin Mittal shows that the authorities did take action: an FIR was registered, he was arrested, police custody was obtained, a chargesheet and supplementary chargesheet were filed, other accused were arrested, some accused were declared proclaimed offenders, and the matter reached the trial court.

But here is the uncomfortable part.

The principal criminal case is still pending.

And on 10 June 2026, more than three years after FIR No. 84/2023 was registered, the trial court recorded that supplementary investigation was still in progress, directed the investigating officer to expedite it and instructed the DCP concerned to monitor the investigation. The next hearing was listed for 20 November 2026.

So the real question is no longer:

“Why was no action taken against Sachin Mittal?”

The documentary record does not support that literal claim.

The harder question is:

Why has serious police action still not produced a final judicial determination, and why was supplementary investigation continuing years after the original FIR, arrest and filing of chargesheets?

That is where the story becomes much more troubling.

---

The first thing the public record establishes: Sachin Mittal was not merely the subject of an internet complaint

The Delhi High Court’s 28 March 2024 order in Sachin Mittal v. State (NCT of Delhi), Bail Application No. 2576/2023 concerns FIR No. 84/2023, registered at the Special Cell, Delhi, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 384, 506 and 120B IPC.

The FIR followed a complaint by Sunil Kumar Gupta.

According to the prosecution case recorded by the High Court, Gupta was induced to obtain two home loans totalling approximately ₹6.80 crore in connection with properties in Gurugram. The prosecution alleged that forged documents were used and that Gupta did not receive possession of the properties. The two principal loans were:

₹3 crore from IDBI Bank

and

₹3.80 crore from ICICI Bank.

The prosecution further alleged that money from the transactions moved through accounts linked to Naman Finlease, in which the High Court record identifies Sachin Mittal as a director and major shareholder.

The allegation was therefore not some anonymous social-media accusation.

It was serious enough to produce an actual criminal investigation and an arrest.

---

11 June 2023: the arrest

The Delhi High Court records that Sachin Mittal was arrested on 11 June 2023 and was given 14 days of police custody.

The prosecution’s case, as recorded by the Court, was considerably broader than the original complaint.

The police claimed that investigation had brought 16 other alleged fraudulent home-loan cases to light involving several of the accused.

The prosecution also described the matter as a multi-victim scam and said that 16 victims had been identified.

Those statements must be reported accurately: they were the prosecution’s allegations/status report at the bail stage, not a judicial finding that Sachin Mittal committed all 16 alleged offences.

But the seriousness of the allegations is beyond dispute.

---

The State told the High Court that seven FIRs had already been registered against Mittal

This is one of the most important facts in the entire record.

During the bail proceedings, the State’s counsel relied on the prosecution status report and told the Court that Sachin Mittal had been involved in several earlier cheating and forgery cases and that seven FIRs had been registered against him under Sections 420/468/471/409/120B IPC.

The same judgment says the prosecution referred to his “criminal antecedents” dating back to FIR No. 499/2014, Police Station I.P. Estate, and stated that from 2007 onwards he had “7 other FIRs” registered and pending against him.

That is a devastatingly important disclosure—but it also has to be handled properly.

The public record reviewed here does not independently establish the numbers, offences, status and outcomes of all seven FIRs one by one.

Therefore, the defensible statement is:

The Delhi High Court recorded the State’s assertion that seven FIRs were registered and pending against Sachin Mittal; this investigation could independently identify only some of the underlying proceedings and could not verify all seven FIRs individually from accessible records.

That is stronger journalism than simply reproducing the number “7” and pretending the underlying docket has been independently audited.

---

FIR 499/2014: an old criminal proceeding that did not simply disappear

One identified antecedent is FIR No. 499/2014, Police Station I.P. Estate.

Sachin Mittal and others subsequently approached the Delhi High Court in W.P.(CRL) 391/2015, seeking relief connected with that FIR. The proceeding remained in the High Court for years. In March 2023, the case record shows applications concerning mediation and a joint application for quashing the FIR.

The Delhi High Court was still listing the matter in later cause lists, including 2025 and 2026.

That does not prove that the allegations in FIR 499/2014 were true.

It also does not establish a conviction.

It does establish something else:

The criminal-law history surrounding Mittal is considerably older than FIR 84/2023.

And it is precisely why any statement that “nothing had ever happened” would be factually wrong.

---

The second major strand: Naman Finlease and Loanwalle

The Sachin Mittal story cannot be understood without examining Naman Finlease Private Limited.

Corporate records identify DIN 02683561, Sachin Mittal, as a director of Naman Finlease from June 2019.

The Delhi High Court’s 2024 bail record describes Naman Finlease as the NBFC run by Mittal in the prosecution’s account and records alleged financial transfers involving the company.

Then there is Loanwalle.

The Karnataka High Court in Naman Finlease Private Limited v. State of Karnataka, W.P. No. 13963/2023, expressly recorded that the company disbursed loans through the Loanwalle application. One complaint concerned a ₹25,000 loan carrying 1% interest per day, with repayment due in approximately one month.

A borrower then complained to the police alleging harassment in recovery.

That complaint became Crime No. 289/2023, invoking Sections 419, 420, 504 and 506 IPC and Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act.

The police also froze Naman Finlease’s bank account.

The Karnataka High Court later set aside the freeze because the statutory procedure under Section 102(3) CrPC had not been complied with and expressly left liberty for the investigating agency to proceed in accordance with law.

That is a crucial distinction.

The High Court did not acquit Naman Finlease on the underlying complaint.

It dealt with the legality of the account-freezing procedure.

So anyone portraying that order either as a judicial declaration of innocence or as a finding of fraud would be misreporting it.

---

One percent a day: a number that should make every regulator stop and look

A ₹25,000 loan at 1% per day means ₹250 of interest for every day at that simple rate.

Annualised on a simple basis, that is approximately 365% a year.

That does not, by itself, establish an unlawful rate.

But it is an extraordinary number in a consumer-credit context.

And it is particularly relevant because the Reserve Bank of India itself has identified exorbitant interest rates, unfair business conduct and unethical recovery practices as concerns requiring regulation in digital lending.

The RBI’s Digital Lending Directions, 2025 expressly emphasise due diligence and oversight of Lending Service Providers and arrangements surrounding digital lending.

In other words, the regulatory system itself recognises that the lending model needs careful supervision.

So when a borrower complaint involves a claimed 1% per day rate and recovery-harassment allegations, the appropriate response is not sensationalism.

It is forensic regulatory examination.

---

Then came the former employee who was allegedly on the run

The case became even more serious when Swadesh Ranjan Mishra, also known as Durgesh, entered the public record.

Mishra’s DIN is 08638235.

Corporate records place him as a director of Fintech Cloud Private Limited from 20 June 2022.

He was also associated with Consistent Chit Fund Private Limited, alongside Sachin Mittal.

The Indian Express reported on 14 October 2024 that Delhi Crime Branch had arrested Mishra in connection with an alleged ₹6-crore financial fraud.

According to police as reported by the newspaper:

• Mishra had worked at Naman Finlease from 2018 to 2022;
• police alleged that he and others cheated Sunil Kumar Gupta;
• police said he had been absconding after the case was registered in 2023;
• police said he was arrested after returning to Delhi; and
• an officer said he had confessed to involvement.

Those are police statements reported by the media, not findings of guilt.

But there is another crucial fact.

The trial-court record for FIR 84/2023 shows that in April 2024 Swadesh Ranjan Mishra was shown as a proclaimed offender in the supplementary chargesheet.

By June 2026, however, the same trial record shows Swadesh Ranjan Mishra appearing through video conference with counsel in the continuing proceeding.

Again, the progression itself is important.

It shows that the underlying prosecution has been active for years.

It also shows why the public record needs to be tracked continuously rather than by newspaper headlines alone.

---

The two DINs the market should not casually overlook

The corporate-record connection is unusually clear:

Corporate-directory records currently list Sachin Mittal and Swadesh Ranjan Mishra as directors of Fintech Cloud.

That does not mean the company is criminally liable for the conduct alleged in proceedings involving either individual.

Corporate personality matters.

But it does mean their histories are material diligence questions when assessing the company’s management, governance and transaction risk.

---

And here comes the extraordinary corporate twist: Fintech Cloud is now worth ₹1,500 crore on paper

On 11 September 2026, Indiabulls Limited announced an agreement to acquire 70% of Fintech Cloud for ₹1,050 crore, implying a ₹1,500-crore equity valuation.

The transaction proposes the issue of up to 21 crore Indiabulls shares under an NCLT-approved scheme, with Indiabulls obtaining majority board control. The transaction remains subject to the required approvals.

Fintech Cloud’s disclosed FY2025–26 figures are:

Gross revenue: ₹133.77 crore

Profit before tax: ₹30.31 crore

And the company had reported no revenue in FY2023–24 or FY2024–25 according to the transaction disclosure reported by multiple financial publications.

The basic arithmetic is striking.

Implied full-company valuation: ₹1,500 crore

FY26 revenue: ₹133.77 crore

Valuation / revenue: approximately 11.2×

FY26 PBT: ₹30.31 crore

Valuation / PBT: approximately 49.5×

Those multiples do not prove that the valuation is wrong.

A technology company can be worth many times current earnings if investors expect exceptional future growth.

But it means the buyer should be able to explain, in painful detail:

What precisely is being valued?

Recurring revenue?

Technology?

IP?

NBFC relationships?

Customer base?

Distribution?

Loan-servicing infrastructure?

Future growth?

Margins?

Or a combination of all of them?

Because ₹1,500 crore does not become self-explanatory merely because the word “fintech” appears in the transaction announcement.

---

And Fintech Cloud’s lending role is not merely theoretical

There is another piece of documentary evidence that is too important to ignore.

On 9 April 2025, listed NBFC U.Y. Fincorp Limited disclosed a contractual joint venture with Fintech Cloud for a new brand, Fundobaba, to expand into small-ticket personal and business loans.

U.Y. Fincorp disclosed that the business would operate under its own NBFC licence and would be managed by Fintech Cloud. The company also disclosed an intended investment of ₹20 crore in that expansion.

Fundobaba’s current website identifies:

U.Y. Fincorp — NBFC partner

and

Fintech Cloud — technology partner.

This is important because it clarifies something that must not be distorted.

Fintech Cloud is not necessarily itself the balance-sheet lender.

Its documented role can include technology, operations and loan-service functions for lending conducted through regulated entities.

But precisely because it sits in that ecosystem, its systems and conduct are still economically and regulatorily significant.

---

So what exactly does “no strict action” mean?

The record does not support the claim that authorities simply ignored Sachin Mittal.

Quite the opposite.

There was:

an FIR;

an arrest;

14 days of police custody;

a chargesheet;

a supplementary chargesheet;

multiple accused;

proclaimed-offender proceedings;

bank-account freezing in the separate Loanwalle case;

court hearings;

and continuing investigation.

The problem is that enforcement activity did not culminate in final adjudication quickly.

And that distinction matters.

---

The most uncomfortable sequence in the entire file

Consider the timeline.

2014

FIR No. 499/2014 is among the criminal antecedents referred to in the 2024 High Court proceedings. The associated quashing litigation continued for years.

2023

FIR 84/2023 was registered.

Sachin Mittal was arrested in June.

The prosecution’s investigation claimed that 16 additional alleged fraudulent home-loan cases had emerged.

2024

The Delhi High Court granted Mittal bail on 28 March, expressly stating that the merits of the accusations had to be tested at trial.

Swadesh Mishra was shown as a proclaimed offender in the supplementary chargesheet.

October 2024

Mishra was reported arrested by Delhi Crime Branch after allegedly remaining absconding.

2025

U.Y. Fincorp formally disclosed its Fundobaba arrangement with Fintech Cloud for small-ticket personal and business lending, with Fintech Cloud managing the business under U.Y. Fincorp’s NBFC licence.

February 2026

The trial court was still dealing with chargesheet copies and directed the investigating officer to provide the status of further investigation and supplementary chargesheet.

June 2026

The court recorded that supplementary investigation was still in progress, directed the IO to expedite it and ordered DCP monitoring.

September 2026

Indiabulls announced the proposed ₹1,050-crore acquisition of 70% of Fintech Cloud, implying a ₹1,500-crore valuation.

That sequence is the real story.

---

The system did act. But did it act fast enough?

That is a fair question.

And the evidence gives no reason to pretend otherwise.

The trial court itself said in June 2026:

expedite the supplementary investigation

and

DCP to monitor the investigation.

A court does not issue those directions because everything is moving at lightning speed.

The order is not a finding of negligence.

But it is documentary evidence that the pace of investigation required judicial prompting.

---

What happened to the alleged “16 victims”?

This is one of the biggest unanswered public-interest questions.

The High Court record says that 16 other alleged fraudulent home-loan cases had emerged and separately records the prosecution statement that 16 victims had been identified.

But a responsible investigation must go further.

Where are the final case numbers?

Which FIR corresponds to which alleged victim?

What are the alleged amounts?

Which banks suffered exposure?

How many properties were involved?

Which documents were allegedly fabricated?

How much money was ultimately recovered?

How many cases reached chargesheet stage?

How many remain under investigation?

How many were closed?

How many resulted in discharge or acquittal?

How many are pending?

And how many, if any, were found to have no prosecutable evidence?

The existing public record located in this review does not provide a consolidated answer.

That is an accountability gap.

---

The “seven FIR” claim has the same problem

The State told the High Court that seven FIRs existed.

Fine.

Then publish them.

Not as a media leak.

Not as a throwaway sentence in a bail status report.

Give the public the legally accurate status of each:

FIR number

police station

date

sections

complainant

alleged amount

whether chargesheeted

current court

current status

quashed / pending / acquitted / convicted / compounded / closed

Anything less leaves the number floating without context.

And floating numbers are the easiest raw material for both sensational journalism and unfair character assassination.

---

The same standard should apply to Swadesh Ranjan Mishra

Mishra’s public record also needs to be separated from Sachin Mittal’s.

What is verified?

He was historically employed by Naman Finlease, according to police reporting.

He was shown as a proclaimed offender in the supplementary chargesheet in FIR 84/2023.

He was subsequently reported arrested by Delhi Crime Branch in October 2024.

His DIN 08638235 is linked to Fintech Cloud, and current corporate-directory records identify him as a Fintech Cloud director.

He appeared through video conference in the continuing FIR 84/2023 proceeding in February and June 2026.

What is not established?

A conviction.

A final judicial finding that the allegations against him are true.

A finding that Fintech Cloud committed the alleged offences.

Those lines must not be crossed.

---

And that is exactly why the Fintech Cloud acquisition deserves enhanced scrutiny

This is not because a criminal case involving a director automatically contaminates a company.

That would be legally and journalistically irresponsible.

It is because Indiabulls is not buying a random software company.

It is buying control of a business in the digital-lending service ecosystem, where the regulatory framework itself identifies risks around third parties, unfair practices, high interest rates, data and recovery conduct.

And the target’s management history contains serious unresolved litigation that includes:

Sachin Mittal’s arrest and pending criminal case;

the prosecution’s allegation of multiple other home-loan fraud cases;

the State’s assertion of seven pending FIRs at the 2024 bail stage;

Naman Finlease/Loanwalle litigation involving a borrower complaint and 1%-per-day stated interest;

Swadesh Mishra’s prosecution history in the same principal FIR and his reported arrest after being proclaimed an offender;

and

a sudden jump to ₹133.77 crore of FY26 revenue after two years of reported nil turnover.

That combination does not prove corporate misconduct.

But it certainly makes enhanced due diligence entirely reasonable.

---

What should Indiabulls disclose?

A serious listed-company transaction should make these questions answerable.

The litigation file

What did the purchaser’s legal due diligence say about FIR 84/2023?

What did it say about FIR 499/2014?

What did it find regarding the other FIRs referred to by the State?

Were any additional criminal cases discovered through private due diligence that are not publicly indexed?

The management file

What due diligence was conducted on Sachin Mittal?

What due diligence was conducted on Swadesh Ranjan Mishra?

Were their past and current directorships mapped?

Were there any undisclosed related entities?

The lending-compliance file

What lending products does Fintech Cloud actually service?

Which NBFCs?

Which digital lending apps?

What are the interest-rate ranges?

What are the collection policies?

What grievance mechanisms exist?

What borrower complaints have been received?

How were they resolved?

The revenue file

How did revenue go from nil to ₹133.77 crore?

Who are the major customers?

What percentage comes from the top five?

How much is recurring?

How much is contingent?

How much has actually been collected?

The valuation file

Why ₹1,500 crore?

What valuation method?

Which comparables?

What growth assumptions?

What discount rate?

What terminal growth?

What is the expected FY27–FY30 EBITDA/PAT trajectory?

What sensitivity analysis was performed?

The risk-pricing file

Did the valuation model assign any economic value to litigation risk?

Were indemnities obtained?

Were escrow mechanisms negotiated?

Were representations and warranties tightened because of the pending proceedings?

These are normal questions for a ₹1,050-crore transaction.

---

Because the strangest part is not that a fintech is expensive

The strangest part is that the public narrative can become so neat:

young fintech + digital lending + technology + NBFC relationships + ₹133.77 crore revenue + acquisition = growth story.

But the actual public record is messy.

Criminal proceedings.

Multiple accused.

Alleged forged documents.

Alleged multiple victims.

Historical FIRs.

Borrower complaints.

A bank-account freeze.

Proclaimed-offender proceedings.

A former employee arrested after allegedly absconding.

Continuing supplementary investigation.

And then, suddenly:

₹1,500 crore valuation.

That juxtaposition does not establish wrongdoing.

But it creates an obvious and legitimate public-interest demand:

Show us the due diligence.

---

The ₹1,500-crore valuation cannot answer the litigation question—and the litigation cannot answer the valuation question

These are different issues.

Even if Sachin Mittal is eventually acquitted, that would not automatically prove that Fintech Cloud is worth ₹1,500 crore.

And even if a court ultimately finds wrongdoing, that would not automatically prove that the current valuation is fraudulent.

The two questions have to be independently answered.

Criminal justice asks: was an offence proved beyond the applicable legal standard?

Corporate diligence asks: was the transaction fairly valued and adequately risk-disclosed?

A serious newspaper should demand both answers without confusing them.

---

The public is entitled to something more than “bail was granted”

Sachin Mittal was granted bail in March 2024.

The Delhi High Court expressly stated that it was not determining the merits and that allegations of cheating, forgery and misappropriation would have to be tested through evidence at trial.

That means the proper journalistic description today is:

Arrested.

Bailed.

Accused.

Not convicted.

Case pending.

And as of June 2026:

Supplementary investigation continuing.

That last line is the one that should not disappear from every future corporate profile.

---

If the allegations are false, let a court say so. If they are proved, let the law act.

This should be the central demand.

Not trial by newspaper.

Not trial by social media.

Not perpetual investigation without conclusion.

And not corporate whitewashing through a new valuation narrative.

The State’s own investigation should be finished.

The pending material should be filed.

The accused should get every procedural protection to which they are legally entitled.

The complainants should get a judicial determination.

Witnesses should be examined.

Evidence should be tested.

And judgment should follow.

The June 2026 direction to expedite supplementary investigation and have it monitored by the DCP demonstrates that this remains a live concern.

Three years is long enough for a public-interest financial-crime case to demand a much more precise answer about what remains outstanding.

---

Final assessment: the biggest failure may be the vacuum of final answers

The available evidence does not establish that Sachin Mittal escaped all enforcement.

He did not.

He was arrested.

He faced criminal proceedings.

His company Naman Finlease was involved in separate litigation.

The State told the High Court that seven FIRs were pending and that 16 alleged additional fraudulent home-loan cases had surfaced.

A former Naman employee, Swadesh Ranjan Mishra, was prosecuted in the same principal FIR, shown as a proclaimed offender and later reported arrested.

And today, the primary criminal proceeding remains pending.

What the record does not yet provide is a final judicial answer.

That is the problem.

Because a functioning justice system cannot measure success merely by:

FIR registered.

Arrest made.

Chargesheet filed.

Matter listed.

Next date.

Another next date.

A criminal case ultimately needs an answer.

And when the person at its centre is now associated with a private fintech that is the subject of a proposed ₹1,500-crore valuation, the public has an especially strong interest in seeing that answer arrive before the history gets buried under corporate presentation decks and “strategic fintech” language.

---

THE QUESTION FOR DELHI POLICE, THE TRIAL COURT, REGULATORS AND INDIABULLS

What exactly remains to be investigated in FIR 84/2023?

Why was supplementary investigation still pending in June 2026?

What happened to each of the 16 alleged victims?

What is the status of each of the seven FIRs referred to by the State?

What is the final status of FIR 499/2014?

What action followed the Loanwalle/Naman Finlease complaint in Karnataka?

What became of the allegations concerning recovery practices and high-cost short-term loans?

What did Indiabulls’ due-diligence process discover about Sachin Mittal and Swadesh Ranjan Mishra before agreeing to the transaction?

And what independent valuation evidence supports paying ₹1,050 crore for 70% of Fintech Cloud?

Those are not accusations.

They are questions arising directly from the documentary record.

And after years of proceedings, the public deserves answers rather than another adjournment.

---

ALLEGATION / CASE / CONTROVERSY REGISTER

A. SACHIN MITTAL — DIN 02683561

---

B. SWADESH RANJAN MISHRA — DIN 08638235

---

What this investigation does not establish

The investigation does not establish:

• that Sachin Mittal has been convicted of the offences alleged in FIR 84/2023;
• that Fintech Cloud Private Limited is an accused company in that FIR;
• that every complaint against Naman Finlease or Loanwalle is true;
• that the seven FIRs referred to by the State all resulted in chargesheets;
• that every alleged victim suffered the exact amount claimed;
• that the ₹1,500-crore valuation is fraudulent merely because it is high;
• that Fintech Cloud itself is a “payday lender” in the legal sense rather than a technology/LSP participant in digital lending;
• or that Swadesh Ranjan Mishra’s arrest/report of confession constitutes a conviction.

The supplied investigation report itself emphasises these same evidentiary boundaries and identifies unresolved gaps including Sachin Mittal’s later trial result, additional FIRs, Fintech Cloud-specific FIR/ECIR records, comprehensive RERA records, GST/DGGI, SFIO, hawala, Interpol and a complete ED-attachment inventory.

---

EDITORIAL DISCLAIMER

This article is an investigative opinion and fact-based reporting analysis based on court orders, publicly accessible court dockets, corporate records, regulatory materials, exchange disclosures, official company disclosures and published reports. Serious allegations are presented with attribution and should not be treated as established facts unless and until proved by a competent court.

Sachin Mittal has been arrested in FIR No. 84/2023 and granted regular bail. No court of law has convicted him of the allegations discussed in this article on the basis of the records reviewed. The Delhi High Court expressly stated in its bail order that the merits of the allegations were matters for trial.

The allegations involving Swadesh Ranjan Mishra are similarly allegations. His reported arrest and the police version of events do not amount to a judicial finding of guilt.

The Karnataka High Court’s Naman Finlease order concerned procedural legality of a bank-account freeze and did not constitute a merits-based acquittal on the underlying borrower allegations.

Fintech Cloud is a separate legal entity from Naman Finlease and from the different Indiabulls group entities discussed in the broader research dossier. The existence of litigation involving an individual director or historical business associate cannot, without evidence, be converted into a claim that Fintech Cloud itself committed the alleged offences.

The public-interest demand

What is required now is neither trial by media nor indefinite investigation.

It is time-bound investigation, tighter supervisory control, complete disclosure of the status of the outstanding proceedings, and speedy judicial adjudication in accordance with law.

The trial court has already directed that the supplementary investigation be expedited and that the DCP monitor the investigation.

That direction should translate into measurable progress.

If the evidence supports prosecution, the trial should proceed expeditiously.

If the evidence does not support particular allegations, the concerned persons should receive appropriate judicial relief without years of uncertainty.

If complaints have merit, complainants deserve a result—not another date.

And where a listed company is simultaneously proposing to issue up to 21 crore shares for 70% of Fintech Cloud at an implied ₹1,500-crore valuation, shareholders deserve a complete and transparent explanation of the target’s litigation history, management due diligence, regulatory compliance and valuation methodology.

The issue is no longer whether there were complaints. The documents show that there were.

The issue is whether the system will finally provide a clear, evidence-tested answer.