Introduction
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that merely having multiple criminal cases registered against a person is not enough to invoke the offence of organised crime under Section 111(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The Court clarified that certain essential legal conditions must be satisfied before such stringent provisions can be applied.
Justice Gajendra Singh was hearing a revision petition in which the Court had earlier directed the State to explain how Section 111 dealing with organised crime was applicable in the present case.
State’s Justification For Invoking Section 111(4) BNS
The prosecution argued that organised crime charges were justified because several cases had been registered against the petitioner in different States. These included cases in Thane district in Maharashtra, Cyberabad district in Telangana, another cybercrime case in Telangana, and a case in Jalandhar district in Punjab.
However, the High Court observed that the existence of pending investigations alone did not meet the legal standards required for invoking Section 111(4) BNS.
The Court stated that the material relied upon by the prosecution merely showed that complaints or offences were under investigation and did not establish the mandatory ingredients of organised crime.
Conditions Required To Invoke Organised Crime Charges
The High Court explained that the primary objective behind Section 111 is to dismantle organised crime syndicates through a focused legal mechanism. The Court laid down the basic conditions that must be fulfilled before the offence can be invoked.
The Court said the prosecution must show that the accused committed offences listed under the provision, was a member of an organised crime syndicate, and committed the offence on behalf of such syndicate. It must also be shown that the accused had been chargesheeted more than once in the last ten years for cognisable offences punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, and that competent courts had already taken cognisance of those offences.
Additionally, the crime must involve violence, intimidation, coercion, threats, or other unlawful means.
Background Of The Online Investment Fraud Case
The case originated from a complaint filed on October 30, 2024, alleging an online investment fraud. The complainant claimed he was added to a WhatsApp group called “USB Securities” and was persuaded to invest in the stock market with promises of high returns.
Based on these assurances, the complainant transferred ₹26.55 lakh into different bank accounts.
An FIR was registered against unknown persons and several accused including Vinay Yadav, Rahul Yadav, and Hiralal. The petitioner challenged the framing of charges before the High Court.
Petitioner’s Arguments Before The Court
The petitioner argued that there were no call records linking him with the co-accused and no incriminating material had been seized from him. He also submitted that he was a law graduate and this was the first criminal case registered against him.
It was therefore argued that the organised crime provision under Section 111(4) could not legally apply.
Findings Of The High Court On Investigation Material
The High Court examined the investigation report and noted that the petitioner had allegedly come into contact with other accused persons in 2023 and was asked to arrange bank accounts in exchange for money.
The Court observed that the petitioner allegedly obtained bank accounts through another accused and later passed them on to another individual. It was also noted that the accused persons communicated through social media platforms and regularly deleted chat histories.
Based on these facts, the Court held that there was prima facie material to frame charges under Sections 318(4) and 316(5) read with Section 3(5) of the BNS relating to cheating, criminal breach of trust, and common intention.
High Court Sets Aside Organised Crime Charge
The Court referred to the Jammu & Kashmir High Court judgment in Aamir Bashir Magray v. State and reiterated that organised crime liability requires proof of continuous unlawful activity along with prior chargesheets filed before competent courts during the previous ten years.
Since those conditions were not fulfilled in the present matter, the Court held that the organised crime charge under Section 111(4) BNS was unsustainable at this stage.
However, the Court clarified that if the prosecution later gathers sufficient material through further investigation, it may file a supplementary report and seek additional charges.
Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the revision petition and quashed the charge under Section 111(4) of the BNS.
