Hiralal v State of Madhya Pradesh, 2026

The case arose from an FIR based on allegations of an online investment fraud scheme through a WhatsApp group named “USB Securities.”

The complainant alleged that he was induced to invest in the stock market with promises of high returns.

The complainant transferred approximately ₹26.55 lakhs into multiple bank accounts.

The FIR named unknown persons, including certain co-accused individuals.

The revision petitioner challenged the framing of charges, arguing that there was no direct evidence linking him to the offence.

The petitioner contended that there were no call records, no seizure of incriminating material, and no proof of conspiracy.

It was also argued that he was a law graduate and this was his first alleged offence, hence Section 111(4) BNS could not apply.

The prosecution, however, claimed the petitioner was involved in arranging bank accounts used in the fraud.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court partly allowed the revision petition.

The Court held that mere registration of multiple cases is not sufficient to invoke Section 111(4) BNS.

The bench observed that organised crime requires satisfaction of specific statutory parameters, not just multiple FIRs.

The Court noted that the prosecution material only reflected ongoing investigation, not completed proof of organised crime.

It held that the trial court committed an error in framing charges under Section 111(4) BNS.

The Court clarified that additional charges may be added later if further investigation establishes required material.

The bench reiterated that Section 111 BNS requires proof of:

• involvement in an organised crime syndicate

• commission of crime as part of such syndicate

• prior chargesheeting more than once within 10 years

• use of violence, intimidation, or unlawful means

The Court referred to Aamir Bashir Magray v State to reinforce the requirement of continuous unlawful activity.

The Court held that these conditions were not satisfied in the present case.

However, the Court found prima facie material for framing charges under:

• Section 318(4) BNS (cheating)

• Section 316(5 BNS (criminal breach of trust)

• Section 3(5) BNS (common intention)

The Court noted that the accused were allegedly involved in procuring bank accounts used in the fraud and regularly deleted chat records.

Accordingly, charges under Section 111(4) BNS were set aside, while other charges were upheld.

The judgment draws a clear distinction between ordinary criminal allegations and organised crime syndicate activity.

The Court emphasised strict compliance with statutory safeguards under Section 111 BNS, preventing overbroad application.

It protects individuals from being labelled as part of organised crime based only on multiple FIRs or investigations.

The ruling reinforces that investigation status is not equal to proof of organised criminal activity.

The decision ensures that organised crime provisions are used only for structured, continuing syndicate-based offences.

At the same time, the Court upheld charges for fraud-related offences, ensuring accountability for prima facie misconduct.

The judgment balances criminal law enforcement with protection against overcharging under stringent provisions.

It strengthens judicial scrutiny at the stage of framing of charges under new criminal laws.