Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 4501

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
Gajendra Singh, J
Hiralal – Appellant
Versus
State Of M P – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3881 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Raghvendra Singh Raghuvanshi
For the Respondents: Palash Choudhary, Prashant Jain

Invoking organised crime provisions requires strict adherence to statutory thresholds, specifically the existence of a continuing unlawful activity and evidence of at least two preceding charge-sheets for cognizable offences within ten years. Mere registration of cases under investigation does not satisfy these essential legal requirements.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 193 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Section 111(4) - Framing of charges - Scope of judicial review - At the stage of framing charges, Court is not a post office but must exercise judicial mind to determine if grave suspicion exists - Evaluation of materials is necessary to decide if offences are made out. (Paras 6, 7)

(B) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Section 111 - Organised Crime - Essential ingredients - For invoking provisions regarding organised crime, there must be a continuing unlawful activity, membership in an organised crime syndicate, and a requirement of more than one charge-sheet filed in the preceding ten years for cognizable offences punishable with three years or more - Mere registration of FIRs under investigation does not satisfy the statutory threshold. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 16)

Facts of the case:
Criminal revision was filed challenging the order of the trial court framing charges under sections relating to organised crime and cheating. The petitioner argued that the framing of charges was based on surmises,, as there was no incriminating material or call records linking the petitioner to the alleged organised syndicate. The state contended that the scale of financial fraud and the involvement of multiple accounts across different jurisdictions justified the application of the organised crime provision.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the investigation material provided by the state failed to meet the mandatory parameters of section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Specifically, there was no evidence of the prerequisite requirement of prior charge-sheets filed within the last ten years against the petitioner. While the trial court correctly framed charges for cheating, it erred in invoking the stringent organised crime provisions without the necessary statutory foundation.

Issues: Whether the ingredients for invoking the organised crime provision under section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, were met based on the material on record at the stage of framing charges.

Ratio Decidendi: To attract the charge of organised crime, the prosecution must satisfy strict statutory parameters, including the existence of a continuing unlawful activity and a proven history of multiple prior charge-sheets within the preceding ten years. Absent these thresholds, charges related to organised crime cannot be sustained at the initial stage of the trial.

Result: Revision petition partly allowed; charges under Section 111(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, set aside with directions to consider applicability of petty organised crime provisions.

Table of Content
1. factual history and procedural background of the criminal revision. (Para 1 , 2 , 5)
2. court's scope of power in framing charges under section 227 crpc/250 bnss. (Para 6)
3. affirmance of framing charges under bns sections excluding section 111(4). (Para 8 , 9)
4. requirements for invoking organized crime provisions (section 111 bns). (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 16 , 17)
5. prosecution's justification for invoking organized crime charges. (Para 13 , 14)
6. setting aside section 111 charges; liberty to consider section 112 bns. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)

ORDER

This criminal revision under Section 438 read with Section 442 of BNSS, 2023 is preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 13.05.2025 passed in ST No.85/2025 by 33rd ASJ, Indore whereby the charges under Section 318(4) read with /3(5), 316(5) read with 3(5) and 111(4) read with 3(5) of BNS, 2023 have been framed against the revision petitioner in a case arising out of the Crime No.113/2024 registered at Police Station Crime Branch, Indore.

2. Facts in brief are that the aforesaid Crime no.113/2024 was registered on 30.10.2024 on the complaint of Amit S/o Prakash Upadhayay with allegations that the members of whatsap group UBS Securities contacted the revision petitioner with a proposal to make investment in the stock market and got transferred an amount of Rs,.26,55,000/- in different accounts. The offence was registered against the unknown persons. After the investigation, final report under Section 193 of BNSS, 2023 was submitted against three persons namely Vinay Yadav R/o Ratlam and Rahual Yadav and Heeralal both Resident of Udaypur, Rajasthan and the investigation was kept pending against other co-accused persons under Section 318(4), 316(4), 114(4), 3(5) of BNS, 2023.

Vide order dated 13.05.2025, the charges were framed. Challenging the framing of charges, this revision petition has been preferred on the ground that the framing of charges is based on the surmises and conjunctures, the learned trial Court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction to shift the evidence in connection with the present applicant/revision petitioner. There is neither any call record between the petitioner and other co-accused persons nor any incriminating material has been seized from the revision petitioner. Confessional statements of the revision petitioner as well as other co-accused persons are not even admissible in framing of charges against the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner is law graduate and has been charged for Section 111(4) of BNS, 2023 which is an organized crime and is not applicable to the present applicant/revision petition as there are no criminal antecedents of the present revision petitioner and thus, it is the first offence registered against the revision petitioner. He relied upon Kashmiara Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ; AIR 1952 SC 159, Ghulam Hassan Beigh vs. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey and Others; 2022 SCC OnLine SC 913; Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal ; (1979) 3 SCC 4, Deepak Bhai Jagdish Chandra Patel vs. State of Gujarat ; (2019) 16 SCC 547, Sajjan Kumar vs. CBI (2010) 9 SCC 368.

3. Heard.

4. Counsel for the State as well as counsel for the objector has opposed the prayer.

5. Final report submitted under Section 193 of BNSS, 2023 keeping the investigation pending as 90 days of custody was going to be completed reveal the role of the present revision petitioner. The revision petitioner came into contact with Rahul Yadav and Vinay Mewada (co-accused persons) in the year 2023. Vinay Mewada asked for procuring the bank accounts for a payment of Rs.10,000/- per bank account to the present revision petitioner who consulted regarding the bank accounts with co-accused Rahul Yadav and promised Rahul Yadav to pay Rs.5,000/- per bank account. Thereafter, Rahul Yadav provided 04 bank accounts to the revision petitioner and the revision petitioner further provided those accounts to Vinay Mawada and the amount of consideration received from Vinay Mewa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 4501

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDOREGajendra Singh, JHiralal – AppellantVersusState Of M P – RespondentCRIMINAL REVISION No. 3881 of 2025

Cases Referred (6)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
Gajendra Singh, J
Hiralal – Appellant
Versus
State Of M P – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3881 of 2025