The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) has quashed an FIR and the consequent charge-sheet, holding that the act of sprinkling white mustard, without any allegation of ill-motive or intention to exploit or harm the victim through supernatural practices, does not constitute an offence under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and Other Inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act, 2013.
The Court clarified that the identification of the Applicant solely on the basis of motorcycle registration, without corroboration from the CCTV footage custodian, was insufficient to sustain the charge.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice S. G. Chapalgaonkar noted that the statement of Ramrao Kakde, the custodian/author of the CCTV footage, was neither recorded nor made part of the charge-sheet. Accordingly, the assertion in the FIR that motorcycle no. MH-20-BE-8092 was seen in the CCTV footage was not supported by any corroborating statement. Further, the FIR merely indicated that a person wearing a helmet was seen on the motorcycle, and the Applicant was made an accused solely on the ground that the motorcycle’s registration stood in his name. The Bench found that there was nothing to establish the identity of the Applicant as the actual rider of the motorcycle.
On ingredients of Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and Other Inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act, 2013, the Bench examined Section 3(2) of the Act of 2013, which makes punishable any act of human sacrifice, evil and aghori practices, and black magic by any person by himself or through any other person. It further referred to Section 2(1)(b), which defines ‘human sacrifice and other inhuman, evil and aghori practices and black magic’ as the commission of any act mentioned in the Schedule to the Act.
The Bench noted that the Schedule covers various practices including assaulting persons under the pretext of expelling ghosts, display of miracles to deceive or terrorize, doing black magic, creating impressions of supernatural powers, and similar acts, all of which must be accompanied by an ill-motive or intention to induce the person subjected to such practice. Thus, the Bench held that the mere allegation that the accused sprinkled white mustard in the premises of the informant, without any explanation of the intention behind such act, was insufficient to bring the act within the purview of Section 3(2) of the Act of 2013.
On mala fide nature of FIR, the Bench observed that the Applicant and the Informant were relatives, and there was an ongoing matrimonial dispute between their family members. The matrimonial dispute between the Applicant’s son and his wife was settled in Family Court as per terms of compromise dated June 23, 2025, while the present FIR was lodged on June 20, 2025, just three days prior. The Bench found a close semblance between the two proceedings and held that the possibility of the FIR being filed as a tool in the settlement could not be ruled out.
Briefly, the Applicant (aged 65 years), had sought quashing of FIR registered for an offence punishable under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and Other Inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act, 2013. The FIR was registered on the basis of information given by Respondent No. 2, who alleged that he found white mustard sprinkled in front of his door.
He checked CCTV footage from cameras installed by his neighbour, and noticed a motorcycle passing by his house, ridden by a person wearing a helmet. The said motorcycle was registered in the name of the Applicant, on the basis of which it was alleged that the Applicant had sprinkled white mustard in the premises of Respondent No. 2 and also at the premises of Jyoti Shrirang Wadhekar. Following investigation, a Charge-Sheet was filed, and the case was pending trial before the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Aurangabad.
Appearances:
Advocates Sana Raees Khan and Harshal Randhir, for the Applicant
APP S. K. Shirse, for the Respondent/State
Advocate Nitin Telgaonkar, for the Respondent No. 2
