Multiple FIRs Alone Not Enough To Invoke 'Organised Crime' Charge Under BNS: MP High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has said mutiple cases against a person are alone not sufficient to invoke charge of organised crime under Section 111(4) BNS, as there "certain basic parameters" which have to be met before the offence can be invoked. Justice Gajendra Singh was considering a case wherein the court had on an earlier occassion asked the State to explain as to how Section...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has said mutiple cases against a person are alone not sufficient to invoke charge of organised crime under Section 111(4) BNS, as there "certain basic parameters" which have to be met before the offence can be invoked.
Justice Gajendra Singh was considering a case wherein the court had on an earlier occassion asked the State to explain as to how Section 111 (organised crime) applies in the matter.
The court noted that the State justified invocation of Section 111 on the ground that there were various cases registered against the petitioner at various police stations including one in Thane District, Maharashtra, a second in Cyberabad District, Telangana, and a third also in Telangana with the Cyber Crime Police and the fourth in Jalandhar District, Punjab.
The court however said:
"The reasons mentioned by prosecution referred in para nos.13 14 and 15 of this order for invoking Section 111(4) of BNS, 2023, at the most reflects that the complaints or offence registered are under investigation. They does not satisfy the standard of Sub-para no.17 of Para no.12 of this order. Accordingly, the learned trial Court has committed error in framing charges against the revision petitioner under section 111(4) of BNS, 2023. If the prosecution collects the material sufficient to justify invocation of Section 111 of BNS, 2023 against the revision petitioner then the same may be submitted before the Court through further investigation and filing supplementary final report and may prayed for additional charge. At present, the charges under Section 111(4) of BNS, 2023 against the revision petitioner is not sustainable".
The court further observed that primary intent behind introducing of Section 111 is to provide a targeted and effective mechanism to dismantle organized crime syndicate. It said that for invoking Section 111 there are certain basic parameters and if only it is found that the accused comes within the said parameters, the offence punishable under Section 111 of BNS, 2023 can be invoked.
These are:
(a) the offences enlisted in the Section must have been committed;
(b) accused should be a member of an organized crime syndicate;
(c) he should have committed the crime as a member of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate;
(d) he should have been chargesheeted more than once before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years for a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for three years or more and the Court before which chargesheet has been filed should have taken cognizance of such offence and includes economic offence
(e) the crime must be committed by using violence, intimidation, threat, coercion or by any other unlawful means.
The case originated from a complaint of one Amit on October 30, 2024, contending that the revision petitioner was contacted by members of a WhatsApp group "USB Securities" to induce the complainant to invest in the stock market by promising profits. The complainant thereafter transferred ₹26.55 Lakhs into various accounts.
An FIR was registered against unknown persons, including Vinay Yadav, Rahul Yadav and Herrlal, and the investigation was kept pending against the co-accused persons. Charges were framed thereafter. The revision petitioner approached the Court challenging the framing of charges, contending that it was based on conjectures and surmises and that the Trial Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction to shift the evidence in connection with him.
The counsel for the petitioner conteded that there were neither any call records with the revision petitioner and other co-accused persons nor any incriminating material seized. It was further conteded that the revision petitioner was a law graduate, and this was the first offence registered against him. Therefore, the charge under Section 111(4) is not applicable.
Examining the final report of the investigation, the court noted that the petitioner came into contact with Rahul and Vinay in 2023 and was asked to procure the bank accounts for ₹1 lakh as payment. Later, the revision petitioner consulted Rahul Yadav to procure the same, paying him ₹5,000 per bank account. Thus, Rahul Uadav provided 4 bank accounts to the revision petitioner, who further provided those to Vijay Mewada.
The court noted that all persons were in contact via various social media platforms and were regularly deleting chat history. Therefore, the bench held that there was prima facie evidence on record for framing of charges under Sections 318(4) (cheating) and 316(5) (criminal breach of trust) read with 3(5) (common intention) of BNS, 2023.
The court, referring to the case of Aamir Bashir Magray v. State 2025 SCC OnLine J&K 721, reiterated that for liability under the section, it must be shown that the person engaged in continuous unlawful activity, which might include economic offences and that the person was chargesheeted more than once in the past 10 years by a Competent Court.
The court noted that the same was not applicable in the present case.
Thus, the bench partly allowed the revision petition and set aside the charges under Section 111(4) of BNS.
Case Title: Hiralal v State of Madhya Pradesh, CRR-3881-2025
For Petitoner: Advocate Raghvendra Singh Raghuvanshi
For Objector: Advocate Palash Choudhary
For State: Advocate General Prashant Jain