The Bombay High Court held that merely sprinkling white mustard outside a house does not amount to an offence under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Black Magic Act. The Court found no material showing intent, fear, or exploitation.
The Aurangabad bench heard a criminal application seeking to quash an FIR. The FIR was registered 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.
Justice S. G. Chapalgaonkar passed the order in Gajanan Kashiram Shekokar v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
The applicant challenged FIR No. 0343/2025 dated June 20, 2025. Police at CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad, registered the case.
The complainant claimed that white mustard was found outside his house on June 11, 2025. He checked CCTV footage from a neighbour’s camera. The footage showed a motorcycle passing by. The vehicle was registered in the applicant’s name.
The complainant alleged that the applicant sprinkled the mustard between the night of June 10 and the morning of June 11. A similar incident was also reported at another relative’s house.
Police completed the investigation and filed chargesheet No. 453/2025. The case was then registered as RCC No. 3181/2025 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad.
The applicant argued that the FIR and chargesheet did not disclose any offence. Counsel stated that Section 3(2) applies only when a person claims supernatural powers and uses them to exploit or harm others.
The applicant pointed out key gaps:
- No allegation of fear, coercion, or harm
- No proof of supernatural claims
- No clear identification of the accused
The defence also argued that the FIR was filed due to a family dispute.
The State and the complainant opposed the application. They argued that the evidence was sufficient to proceed with trial.
The Court examined the material and found major inconsistencies.
- The CCTV evidence was not supported by the neighbour’s statement
- The rider wore a helmet, so identity was unclear
- Ownership of the motorcycle alone was not enough to prove involvement
The Court held that there was no evidence linking the applicant directly to the act.
The Court clarified the scope of Section 3(2). It applies to acts involving black magic, human sacrifice, or harmful practices listed in the Act’s Schedule.
These acts include:
- Creating fear through supernatural claims
- Exploiting people using rituals
- Preventing medical treatment
- Performing deceptive or harmful practices
The Court noted that such acts must involve intent to harm or exploit.
In this case, the FIR only alleged sprinkling mustard. It did not explain any intention or harmful effect.
The Court observed that the parties were related. A matrimonial dispute existed between their families. That dispute was settled shortly after the FIR was filed.
The timing suggested that the FIR may have been filed with an ulterior motive.
The Court relied on the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal. It applied the following grounds:
- Allegations did not disclose any offence
- Evidence did not support the claims
- Proceedings appeared malicious
Based on these principles, the Court exercised its powers under Section 482 CrPC.
The Court allowed the application and quashed the FIR and chargesheet. It also directed payment of fees to the appointed counsel.
The matter was reserved on April 6, 2026, and delivered on April 20, 2026.
