Judgment wp544 & 595.26.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.544 OF 2026 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.595 OF 2026 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.544 OF 2026 1. Gurvindersingh Balbirsingh Dhillan, aged about 49 years, occupation: agriculturist, resident of Babadeepsingh Nagar, Kapil Nagar, Nagpur. 2. Sukhvindersingh Balbirsingh Dhillan, aged about 36 years, occupation: agriculturist, resident of Babadeepsingh Nagar, Kapil Nagar, Nagpur. ….. Petitioners. :: V E R S U S :: 1. State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Police Station Kapil Nagar, Nagpur. 2. Additional Commissioner of Police, North Region, Nagpur (Maharashtra State), office of the Additional Commissioner of Police, North Region, Nagpur. ….. Respondents. ================================ Shri Shashank Manohar, Counsel with Shri Adwait Manohar & Shri Anand Daga, Advocates for Petitioners. Mrs.S.S.Jachak, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondents/State. Shri Gurpreet Chandok, Counsel for Complainant/Intervenor. ================================ .....1/- 2026:BHC-NAG:10860-DB Judgment wp544 & 595.26.odt 2 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.595 OF 2026 1. Sandeep Singh Dhillon, aged about 37 years, occupation: business. 2. Rajvinder Singh Dhillon, aged about 40 years, occupation: business. 3. Balwinder Singh Dhillon, aged about 75 years, occupation: business, all residents of plot No.910, behind WCL quarters, Shaheed Babdeepsingh Nagar, Nari Singh Road, Uppalwadi, Nagpur. ….. Petitioners. :: V E R S U S :: 1. State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Police Station Kapil Nagar, Nagpur. 2. Additional Commissioner of Police, North Region, Nagpur (Maharashtra State), office of the Additional Commissioner of Police, North Region, Nagpur. ….. Respondents. ================================ Shri Shashank Manohar, Counsel with Shri Adwait Manohar & Shri Anand Daga, Advocates for Petitioners. Mrs.S.S.Jachak, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondents/State. Shri Gurpreet Chandok, Counsel for Complainant/Intervenor. ================================ CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE & RAJ D.WAKODE, JJ. CLOSED ON : 11/08/2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 19/08/2026 .....2/- Judgment wp544 & 595.26.odt 3 JUDGMENT : (Per : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE) 1. Heard learned counsel Shri Shashank Manohar for petitioners in both petitions, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mrs.S.S.Jachak for respondent Nos.1 and 2/State, learned counsel Shri Gurpreet Chandok for the complainant/Intervenor. Rule. 2. By Criminal Writ Petition No.544/2026, petitioners seek quashing and setting aside order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur on 18.11.2025 in Criminal Bail Application No.3456/2025 refusing them anticipatory bail. Whereas, by Criminal Writ Petition No.595/2026, petitioners seek quashing and setting aside order passed by respondent No.2 on 28.8.2025 granting prior approval. .....3/- Judgment wp544 & 595.26.odt 4 3. As per contentions of petitioners in both petitions, they are arrayed as accused in connection with Crime No.211/2025 registered on 1.4.2025 with Kapil Nagar Police Station, Nagpur for offences under Sections 109; 135; 189(2); 189(4); 190; 191(3); 296; and 351(3) of the BNS. Investigation was already completed and chargesheet was filed on 27.6.2025 with Final Report bearing No.82/2025. Subsequently, after filing of the chargesheet, a criminal case bearing No.2637/2025 was registered before learned JMFC. After filing of the report, prior approval was granted by respondent No.2 under Section 23(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999(the MCOC Act) on 28.8.2025. Therefore, offences under Section 3(1)(ii); 3(2), and 3(4) of the MCOC Act have been added against petitioners. As per contentions of petitioners, the Competent Authority has not granted sanction under provisions of Section 23(2) of the MCOC Act, till date. .....4/- Judgment wp544 & 595.26.odt 5 4. It is further contentions of petitioners that, as per the prosecution case, on 1.4.2025, at around 10:00 am, a meeting was held regarding election of Head of “Babadeepsingh Nagar Gurdwara”, in which around 40-45 persons were present. During the said meeting, co-accused, who is Head of Gurdwara, along with petitioners, threatened to kill complainant. There were hot exchange of words between two parties and during that hot exchange of words, there was assault by petitioner No.2, (in Cr.W.P.No.595/2026), by means of knife, due to which three persons, viz. Jasbirsingh, Harwindersingh, and Sukhrajsingh, have sustained injuries. Thereafter, the FIR came to be lodged against petitioners on the basis of report lodged by Jasbirsingh Swarnasingh Gill. Regarding the said incident, a counter complaint was also filed by petitioner No.1 Sandeep Singh Dhillon. On the basis of the complaint by petitioner No.1 Sandeep Singh Dhillon, a crime was registered under Sections 118(1), 296, 189(2), 189(4), 191(3), 190, and 351(3) of the BNS. Petitioners were .....5/- Judgment wp544 & 595.26.odt 6 released on bail by the trial court as well as by this court. Subsequently, as provisions of the MCOC Act are applied, petitioners are having apprehension of arrest at the hand of the police. The contention raised by petitioners is that, an approval was granted subsequent to filing of the chargesheet without assigning any reasons and, therefore, the said approval requires to be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned counsel for petitioners has taken us through the entire chargesheet and submitted that by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that petitioners were involved in “continuous illegal activities” and in pursuance of the said “continuous illegal activities,” being members of an organized crime syndicate, they have assaulted complainant Jasbirsingh Swarnasingh Gill as well as other prosecution witnesses. He has invited our attention towards various statements of witnesses and submitted that from statements of witnesses, it reveals that during the meeting, there were hot .....6/- Judgment wp544 & 595.26.odt 7 exchange of words and during the same, a scuffle took place and the complainant, the prosecution witnesses, and co- accused persons have sustained injuries. Counter FIRs are lodged against each other. He has also invited our attention towards medical certificates and submitted that injured persons, i.e. complainant Jasbirsingh, Harwindersingh, and Sukhrajsingh, have sustained simple injuries. Therefore, offence under Section 109 of the BNS (307 of the IPC) is not made out. He submitted that perusal of definition provided under Section 2(1)(d) of the MCOC Act would show that "continuing unlawful activity" means an activity prohibited by law for the time being in force, which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, undertaken either singly or jointly, as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate in .....7/- Judgment wp544 & 595.26.odt 8 respect of which more than one charge-sheets have been filed before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years and that Court has taken cognizance of such offence. He further submitted that “organized crime” is defined under Section 2(1)(e) of the MCOC Act, which states that "organised crime" means any “continuing unlawful activity” by an individual, singly or jointly, either as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, by use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion, or other unlawful means, with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits, or gaining undue economic or other advantage for himself or any other person or promoting insurgency. He submitted that perusal of the entire crime chart nowhere reveals that any offences are committed by some of petitioners for pecuniary or economic gain. .....8/- Judgment wp544 & 595.26.odt 9 He submitted that as far as petitioner Rajvinder Singh Dhillon is concerned, only present offence is registered against him. He submitted that none of statements discloses that petitioners are members of the “organized crime syndicate” and in pursuance of common object of the said syndicate, they have committed the offences. He submitted that on the contrary, the entire statements of witnesses disclose that during the meeting, a scuffle took place and in that scuffle, petitioners as well as the complainant and other prosecution witnesses have sustained injuries and, therefore, no offence is made out as far as application of provisions of the MCOC Act are concerned. He submitted that perusal of the approval order nowhere discloses that on what material, respondent No.2 came to conclusion regarding involvement of petitioners in the “organized crime syndicate”. .....9/- Judgment wp544 & 595.26.odt 10 6. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for petitioners has placed reliance on following decisions: (1) Prafulla Uddhav Shende vs. State of Mah., thr.the SDPO, reported in 2009 All MR (Cri.) 870; (2) State of Gujarat vs. Sandip Omprakash Gupta, reported in (2024)14 SCC 401, and (3) State of Mah. and ors vs. Lalit Somdatta Nagpal and anr, reported in (2007)4 SCC 171. 7. Per contra, learned APP for respondent Nos.1 and 2/State strongly opposed the said contentions and submitted that there is continuous involvement of present petitioners in illegal activities and several offences are registered against them, which is sufficient to show that being members of the “organized crime syndicate,” they are involved in various criminal activities. She invited our attention towards the crime chart and submitted that the entire crime chart shows the involvement of present petitioners in various criminal activities. .....10/- Judgment wp544 & 595.26.odt 11 She has also invited our attention towards statements of various witnesses and submitted that the said statements disclose about criminal activities of present petitioners. Therefore, a proposal was sent for application of the MCOC Act. Respondent No.2 has considered the entire material and, thereafter, passed the order. Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the MCOC Act nowhere discloses that Authority is under obligation to assign reasons while granting an approval. Moreover, aspect of legality of approval is required to be considered at the stage of trial and not at this stage and, therefore, both petitions deserve to be dismissed. 8. Learned counsel for the complainant/Intervenor also reiterated the said contentions and submitted that allegations levelled in the FIR itself disclose that petitioners were trying to misappropriate amount of “Gurdwara” and, therefore, the alleged incident has taken place. Therefore, statements of witnesses disclose involvement of present petitioners in .....11/- Judgment wp544 & 595.26.odt 12 economic offence. As such, the approval granted by respondent No.2 cannot be faulted with. He further adopted contentions of learned APP for respondent Nos.1 and 2/State that this aspect is required to be considered at the stage of trial and not at this stage. The investigation is still in progress and this would be very early stage to consider the aspect of legality of the approval and, therefore, petitions deserve to be dismissed. 9. After hearing both sides and perusing the entire investigation papers, the first and fore most question requires to be answered is, whether the approval under section 23(1) (a) of the MCOC Act is granted by respondent No.2 by considering the relevant material. 10. Before adverting to facts of the present case, it is required to refer object of the MCOC Act and its provisions. The MCOC Act is an enactment which contains special provisions for prevention and control of “organized crime” .....12/- Judgment wp544 & 595.26.odt 13 and “criminal activities by the organized crime syndicate or gang.” The said Act is a special enactment brought on statute to deal with “organized crime” which poses a serious threat to the society and no international boundaries when it was noted that illegal wealth and black money generated by the “organized crime” being very huge, which has serious effect on the countries economy and in the State of Maharashtra, existence of operation of criminal gang being noted, need was to curb their activities and to achieve this purpose and, therefore, the Act was enacted. The Preamble and Statements of Objects of the Act read as under: "An Act to make special provisions for prevention and control of, and for coping with, criminal activity by organized crime syndicate or gang, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto." Statement of Objects and Reasons read thus : .....13/- Judgment wp544 & 595.26.odt 14 "Organised crime has been for quite some years now come up as a very serious threat to our society. It shows no national boundaries and is fueled by illegal wealth generated by contract, killing, extortion, smuggling in contrabands, illegal trade in narcotics kidnappings for ransom, collection of protection money and money laundering, etc. The illegal wealth and black money generated by the organized crime being very huge, it has had serious adverse effect on our economy. It was seen that the organized criminal syndicates made a common cause with terrorist gangs and foster terrorism which extend beyond the national boundaries. There was reason to believe that organized criminal gangs have been operating in the State and, thus, there was immediate need to curb their activities. It was also noticed that the organized criminals have been making extensive use of wire and oral communications in their criminal activities. The interception of such communications to obtain evidence of the commission of crimes or to prevent their commission would be an indispensable aid to law enforcement and the administration of justice. The existing legal frame work i.e. the penal and procedural laws and the adjudicatory system were found to be rather inadequate to curb or control the menace of organized crime. Government, .....14/- Judgment wp544 & 595.26.odt 15 therefore, decided to enact a special law with stringent and deterrent provisions including in certain circumstances power to intercept wire, electronic or oral communication to control the menace of the organized crime.” 11. Thus, purpose of the Act is to curb illegal activities of members of “the organized crime syndicate.” 12. Section 3 of the MCOC Act states about punishment for organised crime. The Act has given a specific meaning and laid down definitions of “continuing unlawful activity,” “organized crime,” and “organized crime syndicate.” 13. Section 2(d) of the MCOC Act defines "continuing unlawful activity" means, which is reproduced as under: “2(d). "continuing unlawful activity" means an activity prohibited by law for the time being in force, which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, undertaken either singly or jointly, as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate in respect of which more than one .....15/- Judgment wp544 & 595.26.odt 16 charge-sheets have been filed before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years and that Court has taken cognizance of such offence.” 14. The definition of “organized crime” is defined under Section 2(e) of the MCOC Act, which is as under: “2(e). The "organised crime" means any continuing unlawful activity by an individual, singly or jointly, either as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, by use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion, or other unlawful means, with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits, or gaining undue economic or other advantage for himself or any other person or promoting insurgency.” 15. Similarly, definition of "organized crime syndicate" is defined under Section 2(f) of the MCOC Act, which is as under: “2(f). "Organized crime syndicate" means a group of two or more persons who, acting either singly .....16/- Judgment wp544 & 595.26.odt 17 or collectively, as a syndicate or gang indulge in activities of organized crime.” 16. In the light of the above definitions, facts of the present case require to be examined. 17. The petitioners are charged with commission of offence i.e. “organized crime” and since they have caused injuries to three persons, Clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the MCOC Act are applied. 18. As far as invocation of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the MCOC Act is concerned, which deals conspiracy, abetment, or facilitation of the “organized crime.” 19. Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the MCOC Act states about a member of an organised crime syndicate. 20. Thus, perusal of definitions above referred clearly shows that it refers to “continuing unlawful activity” undertaken .....17/- Judgment wp544 & 595.26.odt 18 by groups of two or more persons either acting singly or collectively as a syndicate or gang of the “organized crime.” For the purpose of this act, “continuing unlawful activity” means, “the activity by an individual singly or jointly, either as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, by use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion, or other unlawful means with the object of gaining pecuniary benefits or gaining undue or other advantage or himself or any other person, or promoting insurgency.” 21. The entire Scheme of the Act with specific meaning assigned to the term used in Section 3 of the MCOC Act would create no doubt that mens rea is necessary ingredient to charge a person with an offence under the MCOC Act. 22. A combined reading of the aforesaid provisions, especially Sections 2(c) and 2(f) of the MCOC Act, suggests that there has to be a “continuing unlawful activity” carried .....18/- Judgment wp544 & 595.26.odt 19 out by an organized crime syndicate, for which more than one charge sheets have been filed before a competent court within the preceding period of ten years, and that the court has taken cognizance of such offence. 23. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Sandip Omprakash Gupta (supra), as relied upon by learned counsel for petitioners, observed that, “the very fact that more than one charge sheets had been filed against the respondents alleging offences punishable with more than three years imprisonment is not enough.” It is further held that, “as rightly pointed out by the High Court commission of offences prior to the enactment of MCOC Act does not by itself constitute an offence under MCOC Act. Registration of cases, filing of charge sheets and taking of cognizance by the competent court in relation to the offence alleged to have been committed by the respondents in .....19/- Judgment wp544 & 595.26.odt 20 the past is but one of the requirements for invocation of Section 3 of the MCOC Act.” It has further been held that, “Section 3 of the MCOC Act could not be invoked only on the basis of the previous chargesheets for Section 3 would come into play only if the respondents were proved to have committed an offence for gain or any pecuniary benefit or undue economic or other advantage after the promulgation of MCOC Act.” 24. In order to establish the said facts, the prosecution has placed reliance upon several statements recorded during the course of the investigation, which state that there was a meeting on 1.4.2025 regarding election of Head of “Babadeepsingh Nagar Gurdwara”, in which around 40-45 persons were present. During the said meeting, co-accused and petitioners Gurvindersingh Dhillan; Sandeep Singh Dhillon; Rajvinder Singh Dhillon; Sukhvindersingh Dhillan, and Balwinder Singh Dhillon started abusing Members of the .....20/- Judgment wp544 & 595.26.odt 21 Committee. Despite the persons were present, they attempted to intervene, but they were not in a position to hear anybody and started threatening the complainant and other Members of the Committee. Petitioner Rajvinder Singh Dhillon took out a knife and gave a blow on the person of Jasbirsingh, who sustained injury and, thereafter, Harwindersingh and Sukhvindersingh have also sustained injuries in the said incident. 25. The statements of other witnesses are similar on the line of statement of complainant Jasbirsingh Swarnasingh Gill. Perusal of the said statements clearly show that for attending the meeting, 40-45 persons were gathered in “Gurdwara” as a meeting was held regarding election of Head of “Babadeepsingh Nagar Gurdwara” and during hot exchange of words, there was a scuffle and during that scuffle, one of petitioners Rajvinder Singh gave a blow of knife on the person of the complainant as well as the other prosecution witnesses. .....21/- Judgment wp544 & 595.26.odt 22 26. Admittedly, there has to be mens rea behind the crime. The aspect of mental ailment or mens rea requisites for every crime will have to be ascertained from the surrounding circumstances since direct evidence of means rea at times may not be available. There is a vital difference between acts committed with an intention and acts took place either due to grave and sudden provocation or during the sudden fight and sudden quarrel. The said intent can be gathered from surrounding circumstances. 27. Here, in the present case, petitioners are charged with commission of offence of “organized crime” since they have caused injuries to three persons, which are, admittedly, simple in nature. Clauses (i) an d (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the MCOC Act are invoked and applied. The “organized crime”, for the purpose of Act, means, any “continuing unlawful activity” by an individual, singly or jointly, either as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of .....22/- Judgment wp544 & 595.26.odt 23 such syndicate, by use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion, or other unlawful means, with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits, or gaining undue economic or other advantage for himself or any other person or promoting insurgency. 28. In the case of Ranjitsingh Brahmajeetsing Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 2005 SC 2277, the Hon’ ble Apex Court, observed that, unless and until a nexus between accused persons, who are members of the “organized crime syndicate” or an offence in the nature of “organized crime,” is established, the appellant cannot be said to have abetted the commission of “organized crime” and, therefore, held that Section 3(2) of the MCOC Act is not attracted. 29. Thus, there are two essential ingredients to constitute an offence under the MCOC Act. First, the registration of cases, filing of chargesheets and taking of cognizance by the competent court in relation to the offences alleged to have .....23/- Judgment wp544 & 595.26.odt 24 been committed by the accused in the past and secondly, continuation of unlawful activities. In other words, it is only if an organised crime is committed by the accused after the promulgation of the MCOC Act that he may, on the basis of the previous chargesheets and the cognizance taken by the competent court, be said to have committed an offence under Section 3 of the MCOC Act. 30. In the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Shiva @ Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane & ors, reported in (2015)14 SCC 272, the Hon’ ble Apex Court held that, what is important is the commission of an offence by the accused that would constitute ‘ continuing unlawful activity’ and the unlawful activities could be said to have continued only if the accused are found to have indulged in an organised crime after the promulgation of the MCOC Act. As regards expression “continuing unlawful activity,” it is held that filing of more than one chargesheets for offences .....24/- Judgment wp544 & 595.26.odt 25 punishable with more than three years is not enough, but it must be satisfied that “continuation of unlawful activities” is the second and equally important requirement that ought to be satisfied. It is only if an organised crime is committed by the accused after the promulgation of MCOC Act that has to be considered in the light of the previous chargesheets. 31. Thus, the legal position is settled that the offence under MCOC Act must comprise continuing unlawful activity relating to organized crime undertaken by an individual singly or jointly, either as a member of the organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate by use of coercive or other unlawful means with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits or gaining undue economic or other advantage for himself or for any other person or for promoting insurgency. 32. In the light of the above well settled legal position, if facts of the present case are taken into consideration, respondent No.2 - Additional Commissioner of Police, North .....25/- Judgment wp544 & 595.26.odt 26 Region, Nagpur has granted the approval for application of provisions of the MCOC Act by order dated 28.2.2025. The said approval order is reproduced as under: “Office of Addl.Commissioner of Police North Region Nagpur (Maharashtra State) Addl.CP/North Region/MCOCA/Sanction/1968/2025 Date: August 2025 CONFIDENTAL ORDER (Under Section 23(1) (a) of the M.C.O.C. Act 1999) (In the matter of addition of Sec. 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) of the M.C.O.C. Act, 1999 in Crime No. 211/2025 of Kapilnagar Police Station, Nagpur City) I have gone through the proposal and the documents submitted in support of the proposal by Sr. Police Inspector, Satish Ade, P.Stn. Kapilnagar, Nagpur City for addition of the Section 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) of the M.C.O.C. Act, 1999, with the Crime No. 211/2025 of Police Station Kapilnagar for the offence punishable u/s 109, 189(2), 189(4), 190, 191(3), 296, 351(3) ... 2023. r/w 135 Maharashtra Police Act 1951. I have also gone through the recommendation there on of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-V, Nagpur City against the below mentioned accused namely, as under :- 1) Gurvindersingh alias Gullu s/o Balbirsingh Dhillan, aged 42 years, r/o Plot No. 910, Babadeepsingh Nagar, In Front Gurudwara, P. Stn. Kapilnagar, Nagpur.(Absconded). 2) Rajvindersingh s/o Balbirsingh Dhillan, aged 37 years, r/o Plot No. 910, Babadeepsingh Nagar, In Front Gurudwara, P. Stn. Kapilnagar, Nagpur. .....26/- Judgment wp544 & 595.26.odt 27 3) Sukhvindarsingh s/o Balbirsingh Dhillan, aged 39 years, r/o Plot No. 910, Babadeepsingh Nagar, In Front Gurudwara, P. Stn. Kapilnagar, Nagpur. (Absconded). 4) Sandeepsingh s/o Balbirsingh Dhillan, aged 35 years, r/o Plot No. 910, Babadeepsingh Nagar, In Front Gurudwara, P. Stn. Kapilnagar, Nagpur, 5) Balbirsingh s/o Basantsingh Dhillan, aged 65 years, to Plot No. 910, Babadeepsingh Nagar, In Front Gurudwara P. Stn. Kapil Nagar, Nagpur. (Absconded). After going through the papers, on the basis of record and evidence with respect to offences, it is seen that the accused as a part of organized crime syndicate are continuing the unlawful activity either singly or jointly and more than one charge-sheet have been filed against them in last ten years in which offences having prescribed punishment of 3 years or more have been considered and cognizance has been taken by the competent court. According to the record, it seems that ultimate intention of the accused persons is to gain pecuniary benefit, establishing supremacy in the locality & other advantages by committing such serious offences. The preventive actions taken against them till date have failed to produce desired results. I am prima facie satisfied that there is a crime syndicate and enough material evidence and record to give prior approval for investigation under the provisions of section 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) of the M.C.O.C. Act, 1999 against the above mentioned accused persons as per authority vested in me under section 23(1) (a) of the M.C.O.C. Act 1999. In pursuance of the above, I direct to Assistant Commissioner of Police, Jaripatka Division, Nagpur City to conduct the investigation of the case under closed supervision of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone V, Nagpur City. Date:-28 August, 2025 (Rajendra Dabhade) Addl. Commissioner of Police, Place :- Nagpur North Region, Nagpur City. .....27/- Judgment wp544 & 595.26.odt 28 33. As per submission of learned APP for respondent Nos.1 and 2/State, the Approval Authority has considered various offences registered against petitioners. The crime chart shows that in all ten offences are registered against them. The crime chart is reproduced as under: Sr. No Police Station Crime No. Section Total Accus ed Court Case No. Gurwin dersingh balbirsin gh dhillon Rajvin dersin gh balvirsi ngh dhillon Sukhvi ndersi ngh balvirsi ngh dhillon Sandi psing h Balvin dersi mgh dhillo n Balvirs ingh Vasant singh dhillon 1 Dhanto li 224/15 353, 342, 504, 506 IPC 03 144/25 27.2.25 ✓ X X X X 2 Pachpa vali 106/16 436, 109, 114, 34 IPC 06 4023/16 13.10.16 ✓ X ✓ X X 3 Jaripat ka 156/16 341, 294, 506(b) IPC 01 3975/16 6.10.16 ✓ X X X X 4 Sadar 112/17 324, 504 IPC 02 3715/17 13.10.17 ✓ X X X X 5 Yashod ha Nagar 278/18 324, 504 IPC 02 1186/19 22.4.19 X X X ✓ X 6 Kapil Nagar 519/23 294, 504, 09 10237/2 4 ✓ X X X X .....28/- Judgment wp544 & 595.26.odt 29 506, 34 IPC 25.07.24 7 Kapil Nagar 522/23 323, 294, 352, 143, 147, 148, 149 IPC And 135 Maha. Prohibiti on Act And 4 & 25 Arms Act 05 2136/24 19.6.24 ✓ X ✓ ✓ X 8 Kapil Nagar 211/25 109, 189(2), 189(4), 190, 191(3), 296, 351 (3) BNS 2023 And 135 Maha. Prohibiti on Act 05 2637/25 30.6.25 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 9 Pachpa vali 410/25 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474 r.w. 34 IPC 01 Investiga tion Dairy ✓ X X X X 10 Kapil Nagar 486/25 61 (2) BNS And 8(c), 22(b) & 29 NDPS Act 05 Investiga tion Dairy ✓ X ✓ X X .....29/- Judgment wp544 & 595.26.odt 30 34. Perusal of the said crime chart reveals that the most of offences registered against petitioners are committed by them against human body. Only offence is registered under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474 read with 34 of the IPC i.e. against petitioner Gurvindersingh in Criminal Writ Petition No.544/2026. 35. As far as the approval is concerned, which was not for registering crime against individual offender, but for recording of information regarding commission of an offence or “organized crime” under the Act of 2000. While considering proposal for grant of prior approval under Section 23(1)(a) of the MCOC Act, what is essential is, satisfaction of the Competent Authority that material placed before him does reveal presence of credible information regarding commission of an offence of the “organized crime syndicate” and, therefore, allow invocation of Section 3 of the Act of 2000. As .....30/- Judgment wp544 & 595.26.odt 31 a consequence of which, investigation of that crime can be taken forward by investigating agency and chargesheet can be filed before the concerned court and upon grant of sanction by the Competent Authority under Section 23(2), the competent court can take cognizance of the case. 36. In the case of Kavitha Lankesh vs. State of Karnataka and ors, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 956, the Three- Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court, while considering aspect of approval, in paragraph No.26, observed as under: “26. At the stage of granting prior approval under Section 23(1)(a) of the 2000 Act, therefore, the competent authority is not required to wade through the material placed by the Investigating Agency before him along with the proposal for grant of prior approval to ascertain the specific role of each Accused. The competent authority has to focus essentially on the factum whether the information/material reveals the commission of a crime which is an organized crime committed by the organized crime syndicate. In that, the prior approval is qua offence and not the offender as such. As long as the incidents referred to in earlier .....31/- Judgment wp544 & 595.26.odt 32 crimes are committed by a group of persons and one common individual was involved in all the incidents, the offence under the 2000 Act can be invoked. This Court in Prasad Shrikant Purohit expounded that, at the stage of taking cognizance, the competent Court takes cognizance of the offence and not the offender. This analogy applies even at the stage of grant of prior approval for invocation of provisions of the 2000 Act. The prior sanction under Section 24(2), however, may require enquiry into the specific role of the offender in the commission of organized crime, namely, he himself singly or jointly or as a member of the organized crime syndicate indulged in commission of the stated offences so as to attract the punishment provided Under Section 3(1) of the 2000 Act. However, if the role of the offender is merely that of a facilitator or of an abettor as referred to in Section 3(2), 3(3), 3(4) or 3(5), the requirement of named person being involved in more than two chargesheets registered against him in the past is not relevant. Regardless of that, he can be proceeded under the 2000 Act, if the material collected by the Investigating Agency reveals that he had nexus with the Accused who is a member of the organized crime syndicate or such nexus is related to the offence in the nature of organized crime. Thus, he need not be a person who had direct role in the commission of an organized crime.” .....32/- Judgment wp544 & 595.26.odt 33 In this case (supra), aspect of satisfaction by the approval authority is also considered by the Hon’ ble Apex Court and held that, “what is essential is, the satisfaction of the credible information regarding commission of an offence by the “organized crime syndicate.” 37. Thus, perusal of the entire material relied upon by the prosecution in the present case discloses that the dispute arose during the meeting held for appointing the Head of “Babadeepsingh Nagar Gurdwara”. There was hot exchange of words between Members of the said “Gurdwara” and during the said scuffle, injuries are caused to the complainant and other prosecution witnesses. Admittedly, cross FIRs are filed against each other. On considering the evidence collected during the investigation, it revealed that during the meeting, suddenly the alleged incident has taken place. As far .....33/- Judgment wp544 & 595.26.odt 34 as mens rea of the present petitioners is concerned, which appears to be absent. 38. Keeping the proposition laid down by the Hon’ ble Apex Court in various decisions, we do not find any definite material contained in the chargesheet to prosecute present petitioners under the MCOC Act. 39. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent Nos.1 and 2/State has placed reliance on the Full Bench decision of the Hon’ ble Apex Court in the case of State Of Maharashtra vs. Jagan Gagansingh Nepali @ Jagya and anr, reported in 2011(5) Mh.L.J. 386 wherein, in paragraph No.38, which is relevant, it has been observed thus: “38. ………. In case of Sherbahadur Akram Khan vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 1, some of the offences resulted from the quarrel at public water tap. In the said matter, as in many of the cases, the accused had assaulted the injured with a fist blow. By no stretch of imagination, such an activity could be construed .....34/- Judgment wp544 & 595.26.odt 35 to be the one for which MCOCA could be invoked. If there are some altercations between two businessmen within four corners of shop and, as a result of which one of them slaps the other, by no stretch of imagination it can be said to be an offence for which MCOCA is to be invoked. Similarly, a dispute between two brothers on some property issue and even assault and that too by a deadly weapon would not come in the ambit of MCOCA. The legislative intent is clear, that MCOCA is for curbing the organised crime. Unless there is prima facie material, firstly, to establish that there is an organised crime syndicate and, secondly, that organised crime has been committed by any member of the organised crime syndicate or any person on behalf of such syndicate, the provisions of MCOCA cannot be invoked. In the earlier paragraph we have discussed in detail as to what are the ingredients so as to constitute an offence of "organised crime". The prosecution will, therefore, have to firstly establish that there is an organised crime syndicate. It will have to satisfy that there exist the ingredients of "continuing unlawful activity". It will thereafter have to satisfy that the ingredients of the "organised crime" as spelt out by us hereinbefore exist, prior to invoking the provisions of MCOCA. We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention that if the wider meaning is given, the MCOCA can be invoked even for sundry offences. .....35/- Judgment wp544 & 595.26.odt 36 As held by the Apex Court in the case of Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma (supra), merely because the person who cheats or commits a criminal breach of trust more than once, the same by itself may not be sufficient to attract the provisions of MCOCA. By the same analogy, if a person commits murder more than once, would not by itself be sufficient to attract the provisions of MCOCA. At the cost of repetition, we make it clear that unless all the ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under MCOCA are available, it will not be permissible to invoke the provisions of MCOCA.” 40. Thus, the Full Bench decision of the Hon’ ble Apex Court, by giving examples regarding the types of quarrel, specifically held that unless and until the prosecution establishes that there is “organized crime syndicate” and satisfies that there exists ingredients of “continuing unlawful activity,” invocation of the MCOC Act is not justified. 41. By applying the same analogy to the present case in hand, offences in the present case registered against .....36/- Judgment wp544 & 595.26.odt 37 petitioners are under the IPC committed against the human body. Only one offence is registered against one of petitioners Gurvindersingh under Sections 420, 465, and 467 of the IPC that by itself would not be sufficient to attract provisions of the MCOC Act. Admittedly, this aspect was not considered by respondent No.2 while granting the approval in view of observations of the Hon’ ble Apex Court in the case of Kavitha Lankesh (supra). The satisfaction regarding application of provisions of the MCOC Act is also not recorded by the Authority. 42. Section 23 of the MCOC Act, which opens with non- obstante clause, further discloses mandate of the legislature that the cognizance of the offences under the MCOC Act should not be in routine course, but only upon the facts disclosing the applicability thereof and satisfaction of the officer of the high rank, the minimum being of the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police, in that regard. In fact, the .....37/- Judgment wp544 & 595.26.odt 38 officer of such high rank is required to decide about the approval even for recording of FIR in relation to any offence under the MCOC Act. This obviously discloses that the approving authority has to apply its mind about the applicability of the provisions of the MCOC Act to the facts disclosed in a matter before allowing the recording of FIR and for the purpose, he must be, prima facie, satisfied about the commission of offence of organized crime under the MCOC Act by the person or persons against whom the FIR is to be recorded. Obviously, for prima facie satisfaction regarding the commission of the offence of organized crime or of participation therein in whatever manner, the approving authority must have some materials before it disclosing the activities of the person or the persons to be of the nature of offence under the MCOC Act. In other words, the activities of a person to be termed as the offence under the MCOC Act, the same should inevitably disclose to have been committed for economic and pecuniary gain. .....38/- Judgment wp544 & 595.26.odt 39 43. It is consistently held that the very fact that more than one charge sheets had been filed against the respondents alleging offences punishable with more than three years imprisonment is not enough, which itself is not sufficient to attract provisions of the MCOC Act. However, requirement for invocation of Section 3 of the MCOC Act is, “continuation of unlawful activities” and equally important that the satisfaction requires to be recorded regarding involvement of persons in “unlawful activities.” 44. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent Nos.1 and 2/State further placed reliance on the decision in the case of Abhishek vs. State of Maharashtra and ors, reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 516 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has considered its earlier decisions in State of Mah. and ors vs. Lalit Somdatta Nagpal & anr, reported in (2007)4 SCC 171; Ranjitsingh Brahmajeetsing Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra (supra); State Of Maharashtra vs. Jagan Gagansingh Nepali .....39/- Judgment wp544 & 595.26.odt 40 @ Jagya and anr (supra); of State of Maharashtra vs. Kamal ahmed Mohammed Vakil Ansari and ors, reported in 2013(12) SCC 17, and Kavitha Lankesh (supra) and observed that, “the threshold requirement in terms of clause (d) of MCOCA is that of the activity/activities undertaken by the accused persons either singly or jointly, as a member of an organized crime syndicate, which involves a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of 3 years or more and in respect of which, more than one charge-sheets have been filed before the competent Court within 10 years and cognizance had been taken.” 45. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State also relied upon the decision in Criminal Appeal No.1969-1970 of 2010 (Prasad Shrikant Purohit vs. State of Maharashtra and anr) decided on 15.4.2015 wherein also the Hon’ble Apex Court has considered definition of “continuing unlawful activity,” is defined to mean an activity prohibited by law and .....40/- Judgment wp544 & 595.26.odt 41 that it should be a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more. For the purpose of ascertaining the issue relating to cognizance, the other part of the said definition which requires to be noted is that more than one charge-sheet should have been filed before a Competent Court within the preceding period of 10 years and that Court should have taken cognizance of such offence. The offence should alleged to have been committed either singly or jointly as a member of an organized crime syndicate or on its behalf. In so far as the offences are concerned, if the offence would attract a punishment of three years or more that would suffice for falling within the said definition. The chargesheet should have been filed before a Competent Court with reference to such offence against the offenders. 46. Keeping the aforesaid proposition in mind, and after going through the entire record, we find that element of mens rea and intention must accompany culpable act and conduct .....41/- Judgment wp544 & 595.26.odt 42 of accused which is missing in the present case. We do not find any definite material contained in the chargesheet to prosecute against present petitioners under the MCOC Act. The petitioners approached this court seeking protection of their fundamental rights enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and seeking protection from their arrest. The approval order passed by respondent No.2 also nowhere satisfies us that the said order was passed after satisfying himself/herself by considering the material. The satisfaction of the Authority itself nowhere reflects from the said order. In Criminal Writ Petition No.595/2026, the petitioners seek protection from their arrest. 47. It is no doubt true that, the High Court has wide powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when a petition is filed invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court seeking protection of fundamental rights of petitioners. .....42/- Judgment wp544 & 595.26.odt 43 48. We have considered the claim of petitioners from facts placed before us. If overall material against petitioners is taken at its face value, it does not disclose any sufficient or tangible material, which, according to us, would justify invocation of provisions of the MCOC Act against petitioners. There is no material placed on record to establish petitioners as members of any crime syndicate nor it is established that they were participants in the commission of offence by establishing that they were in Gurdwara with a knowledge of happening of scuffle on a pretext of election of the said Gurdwara. The statements of witnesses show that all members of the Gurdwara were gathered there for meeting to decide who would be the head of said Gurdwara and during that meeting, the scuffle took place. 49. Thus, as far as part of mens rea is concerned, it is not apparent. In absence of any mens rea, common knowledge or intention, if petitioners are subjected to stringent provisions of .....43/- Judgment wp544 & 595.26.odt 44 being incarcerated, in the absence of provisions of anticipatory bail and grant of bail in subjected to stringent conditions enumerated under Section 23 of the MCOC Act, in our considered view, petitioners are entitled for protection from their arrest in the said offence resulting the question of determination of validity of Section 21(3) MCOC Act in the appropriate proceedings. 50. Admittedly, provisions enumerated under the MCOC Act are stringent. It is a settled rule of interpretation that where a statute is penal in character, it must be strictly construed and followed. The basic rule of strict construction of a penal statute is that a person cannot be penalized without a clear letter of the law. Presumptions or assumptions has no role in the interpretation of penal statutes. They are to be construed strictly in accordance with the provisions of law. Nothing can be implied. In such cases, the courts are not so much concerned with what might possibly have been .....44/- Judgment wp544 & 595.26.odt 45 intended. Instead, they are concerned with what has actually been said. 51. In the case of Tolaram Relumal and anr vs. State of Bombay, reported in AIR 1954 SC 496, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “………. if two possible and reasonable constructions can be put upon a penal provision, the court must lean towards that construction which exempts the subject from penalty rather than the one which imposes a penalty. It is not competent to the court to stretch the meaning of an expression used by the legislature in order to carry out the intention of the legislature….” The Hon’ble Apex Court further that, in State of Jharkhand and ors vs. Ambay Cements and anr, reported in (2005) 1 SCC 368, this Court held that it is a settled rule of interpretation that where a statute is penal in character, it must be strictly construed and followed. The basic rule of strict construction of a penal statute is that a person cannot be .....45/- Judgment wp544 & 595.26.odt 46 penalized without a clear letter of the law. Presumptions or assumptions have no role in the interpretation of penal statutes. 52. In the result, in exercise of powers under writ jurisdiction, to protect fundamental rights of petitioners enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and to protect them from being arrested under the said crime, both petitions deserve to be allowed. 53. As discussed above, since the approval order nowhere reflects the satisfaction, as observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kavitha Lankesh (supra), the said approval order is bad in law and, therefore, it is required to be quashed and set aside. In view of that, we proceed to pass following order: ORDER Criminal Writ Petition No.544/2026 (1) Criminal Writ Petition is allowed. .....46/- Judgment wp544 & 595.26.odt 47 (2) The order passed by respondent No.2 on 28.8.2025 granting prior approval is quashed and set aside. (3) The petitioners (in Cr.W.P.No.544/2026) are released on anticipatory bail on their executing P.R.Bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- by each of them with one solvent surety of the like amount by each of them. (4) They shall attend the Kapil Nagar Police Station, Nagpur once a week, i.e. on Sunday, between 10:00 and 01:00 pm and shall cooperate with the investigating agency, till further investigation is completed. (5) They shall not enter into jurisdiction of the said police station, till conclusion of the trial. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.595 OF 2026 (1) The Criminal Writ Petition is allowed. .....47/- Judgment wp544 & 595.26.odt 48 (2) The order passed by respondent No.2 on 28.8.2025 granting prior approval is quashed and set aside. Petitions stand disposed of. Rule accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE !! BrWankhede !! .....48/- Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 20/08/2026 19:05:28