The Bombay High Court's Aurangabad bench has quashed and set aside an FIR and chargesheet under the Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and Other Inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act, 2013, against a 65-year-old resident of Mhada Colony. The court held that the possibility of the FIR being filed as a tool to settle a Family Court dispute involving the applicant and the informant's families cannot be ruled out.
Court's Observations
Justice SG Chapalgaonkar, in an order dated April 20, stated that a mere allegation of sprinkling white mustard in the informant's house premises, without explaining the intention behind the act, does not bring the act within the purview of Section 3(2) of the Black Magic Act. Section 3(2) makes it illegal to promote, propagate, or practice black magic, human sacrifice, or other inhuman practices with the intent to exploit or harm individuals.
The bench noted: "Even otherwise, if allegations in FIR are taken as it is on face value, the act of sprinkling white mustard by the accused itself would not constitute an offence punishable under Section 3(2) of Act of 2013."
Background of the Case
The prosecution's case was that the informant, a resident of CIDCO, Ayodhyanagar, found white mustard sprinkled in front of his house on the morning of June 11, 2025. He checked CCTV footage from his neighbor and spotted a motorcycle, driven by a man wearing a helmet, passing his house at night. The vehicle registration number belonged to the applicant, leading to the FIR.
However, the bench found that the applicant was identified based on alleged footage from the informant's neighbor's camera, but the neighbor's statement was neither recorded nor made part of the chargesheet. The theory that the motorcycle seen in the footage was not supported by the neighbor, who is the custodian of the CCTV. There was nothing on record to show that the applicant was the person riding the motorcycle.
Matrimonial Dispute Connection
The court highlighted that the applicant and informant are distant relatives, and there was an ongoing matrimonial dispute between family members. The matrimonial dispute between the applicant's son and his wife (niece of the informant) was settled in Family Court on June 23, 2025, while the present FIR was lodged three days before that, on June 20, 2025. The bench observed: "The possibility that the FIR is filed as a tool in settlement cannot be ruled out."
Arguments and Verdict
The applicant's lawyers, Sana Raees Khan and Harshal Randhir, argued that the allegations did not constitute ingredients of an offense under Section 3(2) of the Black Magic Act. They submitted that the FIR was a "counterblast" arising from the matrimonial dispute and was malafide against the elderly applicant. The bench agreed and quashed the FIR and chargesheet.
