
Membership In Organised Crime Syndicate Essential U/S 111 BNS: Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside Charge Against Law Graduate
|The Bench noted that the ongoing investigations in 28 complaints across 11 States did not satisfy the test of “continuing unlawful activity” mandate.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench has set aside the "organized crime" charge against a law graduate, noting that the stringent provisions of Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, required strict adherence to specific parameters, which were not fulfilled in the case.
The Court held that to establish “organised crime,” the prosecution must prove a “continuing unlawful activity”, requiring prior charge-sheets on at least two occasions within ten years, membership of an organised crime syndicate, commission of an enlisted offence, and cognizance taken by a competent court. It noted that while the petitioner was allegedly part of a massive cyber-fraud syndicate linked to 28 complaints across 11 states, he had no prior history of judicial cognizance against him. Consequently, the charge under Section 111(4) was quashed, though the petitioner still faces trial for cheating and criminal breach of trust.
Justice Gajendra Singh observed, “The primary intent behind introducing of Section 111 of BNS, 2023, is to provide a targeted and effective mechanism to dismantle organized crime syndicate. From a reading of the said provision of law, it is manifest that for the purpose of invoking Section 111 of BNS, 2023, 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…”.
Advocate Raghvendra Singh Raghuvanshi appeared for the petitioner, Advocate Prashant Jain appeared for the respondent while Advocate Palash Choudhary appeared for Objector.
The matter involved a revision petitioner, Hiralal, a law graduate accused of participating in a large-scale cyber-investment fraud. The prosecution alleged that Hiralal acted as a middleman, procuring bank accounts for a syndicate that defrauded a complainant of ₹26,55,000 via a fake "UBS Securities" WhatsApp group. Investigation revealed the accounts were linked to 28 different complaints across 11 states, involving transactions exceeding ₹8 crores.
The trial court framed charges against the petitioner under Sections 318(4), 316(5), and 111(4) of the BNS on May 13, 2025.
The petitioner moved the High Court in revision, specifically challenging the "organized crime" charge under Section 111(4), arguing that he had no criminal antecedents and did not meet the statutory definition of a syndicate member engaged in continuing unlawful activity.
The Court detailed five essential parameters required to invoke Section 111 of the BNS:
(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.
Furthermore, it Court observed that the prosecution’s reliance on pending investigations and NCRP portal complaints did not satisfy the requirement of "more than one charge-sheet" where cognizance had been taken. The Court emphasized that penal statutes must be strictly construed; without proof of prior judicial cognizance of past offenses, the charge of organized crime cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, the Bench partly allowed the revision, setting aside the charges under Section 111(4) of the BNS. However, it affirmed the charges for cheating and breach of trust.
The Court directed the trial court to instead consider the applicability of Section 112 of the BNS, which deals with "petty organised crime" and does not require the same strict history of prior charge-sheets as Section 111.
Cause Title: Hiralal v. State of MP (Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-IND:12370)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Raghvendra Singh Raghuvanshi, Advocate.
Respondent: Prashant Jain for State, Palash Choudhary for Objector, Advocates.
Click here to read/download the Order