The Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside charges of “organised crime” framed against a man accused in an alleged online investment fraud case, holding that the prosecution failed to meet the legal requirements under Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). However, the Court allowed the trial to continue for alleged cheating and related offences linked to a cyber fraud racket.
Background of the Case
The case arose from Crime No. 113/2024 registered by the Crime Branch, Indore, after complainant Amit Upadhayay alleged that he was lured into investing in the stock market through a WhatsApp group allegedly operating under the name “UBS Securities.” According to the prosecution, he transferred around ₹26.55 lakh into multiple bank accounts after being promised investment returns.
During the investigation, police named Hiralal, along with other accused persons, alleging that they arranged bank accounts used to receive fraudulent funds. The prosecution claimed the accused were connected through social media platforms and regularly deleted chat histories.
A trial court in Indore had framed charges under Sections 318(4), 316(5), and 111(4) of the BNS. Hiralal challenged that order before the High Court.
Justice Gajendra Singh examined whether the material on record justified invoking Section 111 of the BNS, which deals with organised crime. The Court discussed in detail the legal requirements needed to apply the provision, including the existence of a continuing unlawful activity and more than one prior charge sheet within the preceding ten years.
The bench observed that merely showing multiple complaints or ongoing investigations was not enough to sustain the organised crime charge.
“The reasons mentioned by prosecution… at the most reflects that the complaints or offence registered are under investigation,” the Court noted while finding that the legal standard for Section 111 had not been satisfied.
The State had relied on details of several complaints registered across different states and large financial transactions allegedly routed through bank accounts linked to the fraud operation. The prosecution also argued that the case involved a coordinated cyber fraud network affecting multiple victims.
However, the High Court said those materials alone were insufficient to attract organised crime provisions at this stage.
At the same time, the Court found that there was enough prima facie material to continue proceedings for cheating-related offences under Sections 318(4) and 316(5) of the BNS.
Partly allowing the revision petition, the High Court set aside the charge framed under Section 111(4) of the BNS against Hiralal. The Court clarified that if further investigation later produces sufficient material, the prosecution would be free to seek additional charges in accordance with law.
The Court also directed the trial court to examine whether Section 112 of the BNS, dealing with petty organised crime, could apply in the case after hearing both sides.
Case Details
Case Title: Hiralal vs State of Madhya Pradesh
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 3881 of 2025
Judge: Justice Gajendra Singh
Decision Date: 30 April 2026
