The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore has partly allowed a criminal revision petition filed by one Hiralal, setting aside the charges framed against him under Section 111(4) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which pertains to organised crime. The Court, however, upheld the framing of charges under Sections 318(4) read with 3(5) and 316(5) read with 3(5) of BNS, 2023, corresponding to cheating and criminal breach of trust with common intention. Justice Gajendra Singh delivered the detailed judgment on 30.04.2026 after hearing the matter on 03.02.2026, emphasising the need for strict adherence to the statutory ingredients before invoking the stringent provisions relating to organised crime.
The case originated from Crime No.113/2024 registered at Police Station Crime Branch, Indore on 30.10.2024 on the complaint of one Amit, who alleged that members of a WhatsApp group named “UBS Securities” induced him to invest in the stock market by promising high profits, leading to the transfer of Rs.26,55,000/- to various bank accounts. After investigation, a final report under Section 193 of BNSS, 2023 was filed against Vinay Yadav, Rahul Yadav and the revision petitioner Hiralal (resident of Udaipur, Rajasthan), while investigation continued against others. The trial court framed charges including the organised crime provision. The revision petitioner challenged the order, contending that the framing of charges was based on surmises and conjectures without sufficient material. He highlighted the absence of call records linking him to co-accused, no incriminating material recovered from him, and the inadmissibility of confessional statements at the stage of framing charges. As a law graduate with no prior criminal antecedents, he argued that the organised crime charge was wholly inapplicable.
The High Court meticulously examined the scope of powers under Section 250 of BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 227 CrPC) and reiterated well-settled principles from landmark judgments such as P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and others. The Court observed that at the stage of framing of charge, the judge is not a mere post office of the prosecution but must judicially sift the evidence to determine whether a prima facie case exists. If two views are possible and the material only raises suspicion (as opposed to grave suspicion), the accused is entitled to discharge. Applying this test, the Court found sufficient material in the final report and the statement of co-accused Vinay Mewada to disclose the petitioner’s role in procuring and supplying bank accounts for consideration, along with coordination through social media platforms and deletion of chat history. This prima facie established grave suspicion for offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust, justifying the framing of those charges.
However, on the crucial issue of organised crime, the Court undertook an elaborate analysis of Section 111 of BNS, 2023. It noted that the primary intent behind this provision is to provide a targeted and effective mechanism to dismantle organised crime syndicates. The Court held that invocation of this section requires satisfaction of several basic and mandatory parameters, which must be prima facie established. These include commission of the enlisted offences, the accused being a member of an organised crime syndicate or acting on its behalf, commission of the crime in that capacity, the existence of “continuing unlawful activity” evidenced by more than one charge-sheet filed in the preceding ten years on which cognizance has been taken by a competent court (including economic offences), and the use of violence, threat, intimidation, coercion or other unlawful means to secure material or financial benefit.
Drawing heavily from analogous interpretations under MCOCA and the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act in cases such as State of Maharashtra v. Shiva alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane and State of Gujarat v. Sandip Omprakash Gupta, the Court clarified that mere registration of multiple FIRs or complaints under investigation in different states does not fulfil the requirement of “continuing unlawful activity”. The prosecution’s reliance on various NCRB complaints and FIRs pending investigation across states was held insufficient, as they did not meet the threshold of charge-sheets filed and cognizance taken. Consequently, the Court ruled that the trial court had erred in framing the organised crime charge against the revision petitioner. It observed that if adequate material is subsequently collected, the prosecution may file a supplementary final report and seek additional charges. The Court also directed the trial court to consider the applicability of the lesser provision under Section 112 BNS (petty organised crime) after affording opportunity of hearing to both sides.
This judgment assumes significant importance in the evolving jurisprudence under the new criminal laws, underscoring that stringent provisions like Section 111 BNS cannot be invoked mechanically and must be supported by clear prima facie material satisfying all statutory ingredients. It strikes a careful balance between the need to effectively prosecute serious economic and cyber frauds and the protection of individual liberty from overbroad application of laws carrying heavy minimum punishments.
Case Details:
Title: Hiralal v. State of Madhya Pradesh through P.S. Crime Branch Indore
Case No.: Criminal Revision No. 3881 of 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Shri Justice Gajendra Singh
Date of Judgment: 30.04.2026 (Heard on 03.02.2026)
Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-IND:12370
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 