List of Current Affairs

 Source: Madhya Pradesh High Court 

Why in News? 

A Single Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, comprising Justice Gajendra Singh, in Hiralal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2026), partly allowed a criminal revision petition and set aside the charges framed under Section 111(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), holding that the mere existence of multiple FIRs or complaints registered against an accused across different States is not sufficient to attract the provision relating to organised crime. The Court held that certain basic parameters must be fulfilled before the charge under Section 111 BNS can be legally sustained.

What was the Background of Hiralal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025) Case? 

• The matter arose from a complaint filed by one Amit on October 30, 2024, alleging that members of a WhatsApp group named "USB Securities" had induced him to invest in the stock market by promising profits, following which he transferred ₹26.55 Lakhs into various bank accounts. 
• An FIR was registered against unknown persons, including Vinay Yadav, Rahul Yadav, and Hiralal. During investigation, it emerged that the revision petitioner (Hiralal) had come into contact with Rahul and Vinay in 2023 and was asked to procure bank accounts for ₹1 lakh as payment.  
• The petitioner in turn consulted Rahul Yadav, paying ₹5,000 per account, and four such accounts were obtained and forwarded to one Vijay Mewada. All accused were found to be communicating via social media platforms and regularly deleting their chat history. 
• Charges were framed by the Trial Court, including under Section 111(4) BNS (organised crime). The revision petitioner challenged the framing of charges, contending that: 
  • There were no call records linking him with co-accused persons. 
  • No incriminating material had been seized from him. 
  • He was a law graduate and this was the first offence registered against him. 
  • Therefore, Section 111(4) BNS was not applicable to his case. 
• The State, however, justified the invocation of Section 111 on the ground that multiple cases had been registered against the petitioner across different States — one in Thane District (Maharashtra), two in Telangana (including one with the Cyber Crime Police), and one in Jalandhar District (Punjab). 
• The High Court, on an earlier occasion, had called upon the State to explain how Section 111 was applicable to the matter.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the Primary Intent of Section 111 BNS: The Court observed that the primary intent behind the introduction of Section 111 is to provide a targeted and effective mechanism to dismantle organised crime syndicates. The provision is not a general anti-crime tool and cannot be invoked loosely against any accused facing multiple complaints. 
• On the Basic Parameters for Invocation of Section 111 BNS: The Court laid down that for Section 111 BNS to be attracted, certain basic parameters must be satisfied cumulatively: 
  • The offences enlisted under the section must have been committed. 
  • The accused must be a member of an organised crime syndicate. 
  • The crime must have been committed as a member of such syndicate or on its behalf. 
  • The accused must have been chargesheeted more than once before a competent court within the preceding ten years for a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, and the court must have taken cognizance of such offence — including economic offences. 
  • The crime must have been committed using violence, intimidation, threat, coercion, or any other unlawful means. 
• On the State's Justification: The Court held that the reasons advanced by the prosecution — namely, the registration of multiple FIRs in different States — at the most reflected that the complaints were still under investigation. They did not satisfy the requisite standard for invoking Section 111(4) BNS. Accordingly, the Trial Court had erred in framing charges under the said provision. 
• On the Applicability of Precedent: Referring to Aamir Bashir Magray v. State, (2025) the Court reiterated that for liability under Section 111, it must be shown that the person engaged in continuous unlawful activity — which may include economic offences — and that the person was chargesheeted more than once in the past ten years before a competent court. Since neither condition was satisfied on the facts, the charge was not sustainable. 
• On Charges under Other Provisions: The Court found prima facie evidence sufficient to sustain charges under Section 318(4) (cheating) and Section 316(5) (criminal breach of trust), read with Section 3(5) (common intention) of BNS, 2023, given the petitioner's role in procuring and forwarding bank accounts used in the fraud. 
• On Liberty to Prosecution: The Court clarified that if the prosecution subsequently collects sufficient material to justify invocation of Section 111 BNS, it may file a supplementary final report and pray for an additional charge at that stage.

What is Section 111 of BNS, 2023? 

About: 

Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with organised crime and replaces analogous provisions that existed under special statutes applicable to specific States. 

Section 111 — Key Provisions: 

• Clause (1) defines "organised crime" as any continuing unlawful activity — including kidnapping, robbery, vehicle theft, extortion, land grabbing, contract killing, economic offences, cyber crimes, trafficking of persons, drugs or weapons, human trafficking for prostitution or ransom — carried out singly or jointly, as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on its behalf, by use of violence, intimidation, coercion, or other unlawful means, to obtain direct or indirect material benefit.  
  • Organised crime syndicate means a group of two or more persons acting singly or jointly as a syndicate or gang engaging in continuing unlawful activity. 
  • Continuing unlawful activity means a cognizable offence punishable with three years or more imprisonment, in respect of which more than one chargesheet has been filed before a competent court within the preceding ten years and cognizance has been taken — including economic offences. 
  • Economic offence includes criminal breach of trust, forgery, counterfeiting of currency/bank notes/Government stamps, hawala transactions, mass-marketing fraud, or any scheme to defraud banks, financial institutions, or other organisations for monetary benefit. 
• Clause (2) prescribes punishment for commission of organised crime:  
  • If it results in death — death or life imprisonment, with fine not less than ₹10 lakh. 
  • In any other case — imprisonment not less than 5 years, extendable to life, with fine not less than ₹5 lakh. 
• Clause (3) punishes abetment, attempt, conspiracy, or knowing facilitation of organised crime, or any preparatory act — imprisonment not less than 5 years, extendable to life, with fine not less than ₹5 lakh. 
• Clause (4) punishes mere membership of an organised crime syndicate — imprisonment not less than 5 years, extendable to life, with fine not less than ₹5 lakh. 
• Clause (5) punishes intentional harbouring or concealment of a person who has committed organised crime — imprisonment not less than 3 years, extendable to life, with fine not less than ₹5 lakh. (Exception: does not apply to the spouse of the offender.) 
• Clause (6) punishes possession of property derived from organised crime or its proceeds — imprisonment not less than 3 years, extendable to life, with fine not less than ₹2 lakh. 
• Clause (7) punishes any person acting on behalf of a syndicate member who is found in possession of movable or immovable property that cannot be satisfactorily accounted for — imprisonment not less than 3 years, extendable to 10 years, with fine not less than ₹1 lakh.

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, in Manjula and Others v. D.A. Srinivas (2026), set aside a High Court order and restored the Trial Court's decision to reject the plaintiff's plaint at the threshold, holding that the plaintiff — who was arrayed as an accused in the murder of the deceased — was disqualified from claiming inheritance over the deceased's property under Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA). 

• The Court further clarified that actual conviction for murder is not a condition precedent for the disqualification under Section 25 HSA to operate, and that in civil proceedings, the issue may be examined on the standard of preponderance of probabilities.

What was the Background of Manjula and Others v. D.A. Srinivas (2026) Case? 

• The plaintiff claimed to be the real owner of the suit property, which had been purchased in the name of the deceased, K. Raghunath. Relying on an alleged Will executed by K. Raghunath in his favour, the plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration of title and ownership through testamentary succession. 
• The defendant contested the suit by filing an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that it was barred by law, specifically Section 25 of the HSA, as the plaintiff was arrayed as an accused in the murder case of K. Raghunath — the very person from whose estate he sought to inherit. 
• The Trial Court allowed the defendant's application and rejected the plaint. However, the High Court reversed the Trial Court's order, prompting the defendants to approach the Supreme Court in appeal.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the Scope of Section 25 HSA: The Court held that the bar under Section 25 applies to both intestate and testamentary succession. A person accused of murdering the deceased from whom inheritance is claimed is disqualified from asserting any such rights — not only under the statutory provision but also on the broader principles of justice, fair play, and equity. 
• On the Maxim Ex Turpi Causa: The Court reasoned that a person must not be permitted to profit from or take advantage of his own wrong. This principle is embedded in the maxim ex turpi causa non oritur actio and in the rule that no person may benefit from his own wrongdoing. 
• On the Requirement of Conviction: The Court clarified that Section 25 HSA does not make actual conviction a condition precedent for the disqualification to operate. Since the provision imposes a civil consequence, the issue may be examined on the standard of preponderance of probabilities, independent of the stricter standard of proof applicable in criminal prosecutions. 
• On Suppression of Material Facts: The Court noted that the plaintiff had suppressed the material fact of his being accused of K. Raghunath's murder in his pleadings, and a CBI investigation was stated to be pending. It held that a person guilty of suppressing material facts is not entitled to be heard, and the plaint is also liable to rejection on this ground.

What is Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956? 

About: 

• The term succession is not defined anywhere in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA).   
• In general, succession can be defined as transmission of rights and obligation in an estate, of a deceased person to his heir or heirs.  
• This Act applies to Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs, but not to Muslims, Christians, Parsis, or Jews. 

Section 25 — Murderer Disqualified: 

• A person who commits murder or abets the commission of murder is disqualified from inheriting property in two situations:  
  • The property of the person murdered, and 
  • Any other property in furtherance of whose succession the murder or abetment was committed. 
• The disqualification thus covers not only direct inheritance from the victim but also any collateral property gain that was the motive behind the murder.