Bombay High Court: In the present case, the petitioner alleged that under the guise of discourse and meditation, Respondent 2-accused instilled fear in him by promoting and propagating disturbing practices like human sacrifice, and other inhumane and aghori practices, along with black magic, all advertised through an audio-video CD. A Single Judge Bench of R.N. Laddha, J., stated that the petitioner had no direct interaction with the accused and voluntarily attended the seminars where the alleged CD, containing the accused’s pre-recorded two-hour discourse, was played. The Court opined that the Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and other Inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act, 2013 (‘the 2013 Act’) was enacted to curb harmful practices that posed serious risk to individuals and society, including human sacrifices, fraudulent rituals, and psychological exploitation, and explicitly excluded legitimate religious practices, the sharing of traditional knowledge, and cultural or artistic expressions.
Background
In 2011, one Priyadarshan Deshmukh told the petitioner-informant about accused’s spiritual activities and in June 2012, the petitioner attended accused’s one-day workshop in Pune, wherein accused claimed to possess extraordinary spiritual powers that allowed him to guide young people in making career choices by foreseeing their future. The petitioner found that the accused manipulated him into taking on work activities in Tamil Nadu under false pretences and further deceived him into joining their trust. Thereafter, believing these promises, the petitioner went to Gujarat to meet the accused for career guidance, however, upon arrival, he was not allowed to meet him and instead was asked to attend an eight-day workshop.
Later, in 2013, the petitioner came across an advertisement for the accused’s eight-day workshop in Pune and decided to attend, wherein he discovered that the accused would not be physically present at the event, instead he would communicate through his powers and subtle body. It was stated that the accused would deliver a two-hour discourse each day via a CD containing pre-recorded material and that the accused’s abilities had blessed the CD, which was sold for Rs 250 under the deceptive pretext of cheating the public and gaining monetary benefits. Thereafter, the petitioner was invited to join a forty-five-day course, during which he was given a Mantra to chant while closing his eyes and was assured that reciting it would resolve all his troubles. The petitioner began his daily recitations and ended up experiencing significant mental and physical distress that even a medical professional could not alleviate. The petitioner alleged that under the guise of discourse and meditation, the accused instilled fear in him by promoting and propagating disturbing practices like human sacrifice, and other inhumane and aghori practices, along with black magic, all advertised through an audio-video CD.
On 8-3-2018, the accused applied for discharge under Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) and by an order dated 3-3-2020, the Trial Court allowed the application and discharged the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1) and 3(2), read with clauses (2) and (5) of the Schedule appended to the the 2013 Act. The State, being aggrieved by the said order, filed revision application before the Sessions Court, Pune and by the judgment and order dated 9-5-2023, the Additional Sessions Judge confirmed accused’s discharge. Thereafter, dissatisfied with the decision, the petitioner and the State invoked this Court’s writ jurisdiction by filing the present petitions.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court referred to Section 239 of CrPC which dealt with the discharge of an accused in a trial of a warrant case instituted on a police report. A magistrate was obligated to discharge the accused if it was determined that the accusations were groundless by providing reasons for such a decision. The Court opined that under Section 239 of CrPC, if a Magistrate finds prima facie evidence against the accused, he must frame charges as per Section 240 of CrPC and if the Magistrate was determined that the evidence did not support a prima facie case and the charges lack substance and were groundless, then he must discharge the accused.
The Court opined that the standard for assessing whether a charge was unfounded hinged primarily on whether the material presented, if uncontested, would be inadequate to establish any case. The Court also opined that the scope of the revisional Court’s powers under Section 397 of CrPC was limited to examining the correctness, legality, or propriety of the Trial Court’s order.
The Court opined that the 2013 Act was enacted to curb harmful practices that posed serious risk to individuals and society, including human sacrifices, fraudulent rituals, and psychological exploitation, and explicitly excluded legitimate religious practices, the sharing of traditional knowledge, and cultural or artistic expressions.
The Court stated that the petitioner had no direct interaction with the accused and voluntarily attended the seminars where the alleged CD was played. Further, there was no material available on record to suggest that the accused was either the publisher of the CD or owner of the store from where it was purchased. The Court noted that the complaint was lodged in 2014, however, the petitioner did not bring up the contents of the CD until 2016 and this delay raised concerns about the credibility of the allegations.
The Court noted that the decision to discharge the accused was reached after a meticulous assessment of the material on record, which included the complaint, statements of the witnesses, the petitioner’s supplementary statement, and the transcript of the CD. The Court stated that both the Courts below conducted a detailed assessment of the allegations and, based on the material available on record, rightly concluded that the accused should be discharged. The Court dismissed the petition and opined that there was no discernible legal error, procedural irregularity, or erroneous finding in the impugned orders that would necessitate intervention by this Court.
[Rohan Vishwas Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 853, decided on 2-4-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Arjun Kadam, for the Petitioner in WP/2595/2023; Arfan Sait, APP, for Respondent 1/ State in WP/2595/2023 and for the Petitioner/State in WP/298/2025.
For the Respondents: Siddharth Sutaria a/w Abhijit Aher i/b Suyash Khose, for Respondent 2 in WP/2595/2023 and Respondent in WP/298/2025.
