Bombay High Court Upholds Discharge Of Shivkrupanand Swamiji In Maharashtra Black Magic Act Case

A Single Bench of Justice R. N. Ladha observed, “It is a settled position in law that, under Section 239 CrPC, if a Magistrate finds prima facie evidence against the Accused , he must frame charges as per Section 240 CrPC. Conversely, if the Magistrate determines that the evidence does not support a prima facie case and the charges lack substance and are groundless, he must discharge the Accused .”

The Court added, “Both 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. Furthermore, there is no discernible legal error, procedural irregularity, or erroneous finding in the impugned orders that would necessitate intervention by this Court.”

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Arjun Kadam, while Advocate Siddhartha Sutaria appeared for the Accused.

Brief Facts

The Petitioner lodged an FIR against the Accused alleging that he had made false representations and induced people into believing in his miraculous powers. Petitioner alleged that in the year 2011, he was first introduced to the spiritual activities of the Accused. In 2012, he attended a one-day introductory workshop, where the Accused claimed to possess supernatural powers and advised attendees to make important career decisions based on his spiritual guidance.

The Petitioner then attended an eight-day workshop in 2013 at Pune, where the Accused’s teachings were conveyed through pre-recorded CDs, and it was further alleged that the CD was sold to attendees for ₹250, under the false promise that it contained miraculous powers. Further, he was instructed to chant a mantra daily, which allegedly caused him physical and mental distress. The prosecution also alleged that the Accused engaged in the propagation of "inhuman, evil, and aghori practices" and was involved in black magic activities.

The Accused filed an application for discharge under Section 239 of the CrPC, which the Trial Court allowed, and discharged the Accused, holding that there was no sufficient material to frame charges under the Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and other Inhuman, Evil, and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act, 2013 ("Black Magic Act"). The prosecution filed a Criminal Revision Application before the Sessions Court which was also dismissed. Aggrieved by this, the Petitioner and the State approached the High Court challenging the discharge of the Accused.

Contentions

The Petitioner contended that hat both Courts had erred in discharging the Accused and that the evidence on record, particularly the CD sold during the workshop, demonstrated that the Accused was involved in propagating inhuman and black magic practices. It was further contended that the Accused had deceived people by falsely claiming to possess divine powers and that the Revisional Court had wrongly concluded that the alleged offence took place in 2008, whereas the offence continued beyond 2013, falling within the purview of the Black Magic Act.

The Accused submitted that the Petitioner had never personally met the Accused and that he had voluntarily attended the workshops. He averred that his activities were protected under Section 12 of the Black Magic Act, which exempted religious and spiritual practices from prosecution.

Reasoning of the Court

The Court examined the scope of Section 239 CrPC, which mandated that an Accused can be discharged if the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose sufficient grounds to proceed with the case. Discussing the scope of Section 239 CrPC, the Court stated, “It is well settled that while considering an application for discharge, the Court must be satisfied that the material on record is sufficient to proceed against the Accused. The mere existence of allegations, without substantive evidence to corroborate the same, cannot justify putting a person on trial.”

The Court held that there was no procedural irregularity or illegality in the discharge of the Accused and observed that mere allegations, without sufficient supporting material, would not justify framing of charges under the Black Magic Act. The Court stated, "It is well settled that while considering an application for discharge, the Court must be satisfied that the material on record is sufficient to proceed against the Accused. The mere existence of allegations, without substantive evidence to corroborate the same, cannot justify putting a person on trial."

The Bench noted the nature of the Revisional Court's powers under Section 397 CrPC, which is limited to assessing the legality, propriety, and correctness of the trial Court’s decision, and observed that the Revisional Court had rightly concluded that the Black Magic Act came into force in 2013, whereas most of the alleged incidents occurred before its enactment, rendering the prosecution's case unsustainable.

Consequently, the Court upheld the decision of the Trial Court discharging the Accused and dismissed the writ petition.

Cause Title: Rohan Vishwas Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:15152)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Additional Public Prosecutor Arfan Sait; Advocate Arjun Kadaam

Respondent/Accused: Advocates Siddharth Sutaria, Abhijit Aher, Suyash Khose