Back
Multiple FIRs Can't Trigger 'Organised Crime' Label: MP High Court Draws Line in Cyber Fraud Case
In a significant ruling on cybercrime prosecutions, the has clarified that a string of FIRs alone doesn't qualify an accused for the stringent 'organised crime' charge under . Justice Gajendra Singh partly allowed a criminal revision by petitioner Hiralal , upholding charges of cheating and criminal breach of trust but quashing the organised crime allegation for lacking proof of prior cognizanced charge sheets. This decision underscores the high bar for labelling amid rising digital scams.
WhatsApp Investment Trap Unravels into Multi-State Probe
The saga began in when Amit Upadhayay reported losing Rs 26.55 lakh to fraudsters posing as stock market experts via the UBS Securities WhatsApp group . Lured by promises of high returns, Amit transferred funds to multiple accounts. Police at (Crime No. 113/2024) registered offences under . Investigation revealed Hiralal (from Udaipur, Rajasthan) allegedly procured bank accounts from co-accused Rahul Yadav for Vinay Mewada , earning commissions while chats were routinely deleted across social platforms.
A chargesheet under named Vinay, Rahul, and Hiralal, with probes pending against others. On , the (ST No. 85/2025) framed all charges. Hiralal, a law graduate with no priors, challenged this via revision under , heard , and decided .
Petitioner's Defence: Shadows Without Substance
Hiralal argued the charges rested on "surmises and conjectures," lacking call records, seizures, or admissible evidence. Co-accused confessions were irrelevant at framing stage, he contended, citing and on evidence sifting. For Section 111(4) , he stressed no criminal history—his first offence couldn't constitute "" under Explanation (ii) , requiring multiple cognized charge sheets in the prior 10 years for offences punishable by 3+ years' jail. Precedents like and backed limited judicial scrutiny at charge-framing.
Prosecution's Counter: A in the Shadows?
The State and objector (victim's counsel) opposed, pointing to Vinay Mewada's statement () detailing Hiralal's role in account procurement since 2023, parcelled SBI details, and deleted chats. They highlighted data: 28 complaints across 11 states linked to the scam's bank accounts/mobiles, with massive deposits (e.g., Rs 6.54 crore in one SBI account). Specific FIRs in Thane, Cyberabad, and Jalandhar were cited as evidence of organised economic offences. The court had earlier queried the State on Section 111 applicability , but responses focused on ongoing probes rather than cognized priors.
Sifting Evidence, Not Weighing Guilt: Court's Measured Approach
Drawing from and Sajjan Kumar , Justice Singh reiterated the test: Judges sift for grounds, not trial-like probability balancing. Charges under Sections 318(4)/3(5) and 316(5)/3(5) stood affirmed, as Vinay's statement raised "."
But Section 111(4) failed the rigour. The court dissected the provision: Organised crime demands a (2+ persons) in —cognizable offences (3+ years) with >1 charge-sheet filed and cognized in prior 10 years . Echoing , , and MCOCA/GUJCOC precedents like and , it held mere FIRs/complaints don't suffice— is key. Prosecution's 28 complaints showed scale but not judicial history for Hiralal.
As media reports noted post-ruling,
"Multiple FIRs Alone Not Enough To Invoke 'Organised Crime' Charge Under BNS,"
this aligns with the court's emphasis on strict construction of penal provisions.
Key Observations
"The reasons mentioned by prosecution... at the most reflects that the complaints or offence registered are under investigation. they does not satisfy the standard of Sub-para no.17 of Para no.12 of this order."
"For the purpose of invoking , there are certain basic parameters... (d) he should have been chargesheeted more than once before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years... and the Court... has taken of such offence."
"If the prosecution collects the material sufficient to justify invocation of ... then the same may be submitted... through further investigation."
Partial Victory: Quash Organised Tag, Eye Petty Organised Crime
The revision was partly allowed : Section 111(4)/3(5) charges set aside against Hiralal. The trial court must now assess (petty organised crime, sans stringent priors) after hearings. This nuanced outcome protects against overreach in cyber probes while allowing evolution via supplements. For digital fraud cases, it signals: Scale impresses, but legal history convicts syndicates. Future prosecutions must unearth cognized pasts, potentially reshaping economic crime battles.
