Multiple FIRs Alone Not Sufficient to Invoke Organised Crime

 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.